Uttarakhand High Court
REVIEW PETITION 1017 of 2011 on 30 December 2011
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
MCC No. 1017 of 2011
& CLMA No. 13794 of 2011
CTR No. 34 of 2010
Sarva Shri Sagar Sons .….…… Applicant/Revisionist
Versus
The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun
………. Respondent.
………………….
Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the applicant/revisionist. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.
BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral)
There is considerable delay in preferring the Review Application. The reasons furnished for the delay are not sufficient. It is contended that the product dealt with by the applicant namely “Whip Topping” is vegetable oil and that edible oil is one of the scheduled items to be taxed at the rate of 4 per cent. This was the contention of the applicant all through out namely, before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax as well as before the Tribunal. The same was also the case of the applicant in the Revision, which has been dismissed by the Judgment and Order under Review holding, amongst others, the product:
“while holding amongst others the product “Whip Topping” cannot be classified as vegetable oil as any other item as contended by the revisionist, so as to put “Whip Topping “ under the category of tax at the rate of 4 per cent.”
There being specific finding that “Whip Topping” is not one of the items attracting tax at the rate of 4 per cent, the contention of the applicant that the same attracted tax at the rate of 4 per cent was rejected by the Judgment and order under Review, which the applicant knew, the moment, he perused the judgment and order under Review. If such finding is an incorrect finding, the remedy of the applicant is before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not by way of Review. We accordingly, while reluctantly allow the application for condonation of delay, dismiss the Review Application.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 30.12.2011
(Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.12.2011
Kaushal