Uttarakhand High Court
CTR/24/2012 of M/S SIDDHARTH HOSIERY MILLS Vs COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX/COMMERCIAL TAX on 31 December 2012
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No. 24 of 2012 M/s Sidharth Hosiery Mills ………….. Revisionist Versus Commissioner Trade Tax/Commercial Tax Uttarakhand, Dehradun .…………. Respondent AND Commercial Tax Revision No. 25 of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No. 24 of 2012
M/s Sidharth Hosiery Mills
………….. Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner Trade Tax/Commercial Tax Uttarakhand, Dehradun
.…………. Respondent
AND
Commercial Tax Revision No. 25 of 2012
M/s Sidharth Hosiery Mills
………….. Revisionist
Versus
Commissioner Trade Tax/Commercial Tax Uttarakhand, Dehradun
.…………. Respondent
Present: Mr. Syed Nadim, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent.
Date: 31st December, 2012
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
On 4[th] January, 2012, asearch operation was carried out at the factory of the revisionist, who happens to be a dealer registered under the Uttarakhand VAT Act. On 9[th] January, 2012, the assessee produced before the Assessing Officer all books of accounts and records, which suggested that the assessee is in the habit of submitting periodical returns. On 17[th] January, 2012, the Assessing Officer, proceeding on the basis that the sale value of the sweaters is around `400/- and readymade dresses is around `600/-, determined the value of the turnover and, on the basis thereof, determined the tax liability of the revisionist. The Appellate Authority did not interfere with the order of the assessment. The Tribunal also did not do so. Neither the Assessing Authority, nor the first Appellate Authority, or the Tribunal gave any reason in their orders to suggest that the average price of the sweater was `400/- and average price of readymade dress was `600/-. The very basis of the calculation, therefore, is based on surmises and conjectures. In the circumstances, revision applications are allowed. The orders of the Tribunal, first Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer are quashed.
2. It goes without saying that these two revisions dealt with only provisional assessment and, accordingly, the observations, as above, will not stand in the way of the authorities concerned in the matter of correctly assessing the assessable liability of VAT to be paid by the revisionist on the turnover for the whole year.
P. Singh
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.12.2012 31.12.2012