The Assessing Authority's power to reassess escaped turnover under Section 29 of the VAT Act is limited and does not extend to re-examining judgments passed by appellate authorities.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

In this Commercial Tax Revision, preferred under Section 55 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “VAT Act”, for brevity), the assessee has assailed the judgment passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012 confirming the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal)-Second in Appeal No. 606 of 2012 dated 11.05.2012.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute at present. The revisionist-assessee, besides executing works contracts, is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of handmade wire mesh, and is registered with the department. The assessee was assessed to tax under Section 25(6) of the VAT Act by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 25.01.2011, and the self-manufactured sales of handmade wire mesh for Rs. 40,95,167/- were taxed @ 4%. However, at a later stage, the assessee was served with a notice issued under Section 30 of the VAT Act for rectification of the rate of tax earlier assessed on ‘handmade wire mesh’ treating it as an unclassified item and, hence, to be taxed @ 12.5%. The assessee filed its explanation before the Assessing Authority, who, taking into note the language of notification number 560/XXVII(8) dated 05.06.2006, rectified the original assessment order vide order dated 30.04.2012 passed under Section 30 of the VAT Act, and assessed the turnover of handmade wire mesh @ 12.5%, and an additional demand for Rs.3,48,089/- was created against the assessee.

3. The assessee preferred a first appeal before the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeal), who vide judgment and order dated 11.05.2012, passed in Appeal No. 606 of 2012 for the assessment year 2007-08, allowed the appeal and held that the rectification order dated 30.04.2012 was beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 30 of the VAT Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved with such judgment and order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeal), the department preferred a Second Appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal decided that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority requires no interference. While deciding this issue, the learned Tribunal resorted to the following reasoning :-

“We have heard both the sides and perused the records carefully. Entry number 128 in schedule II B of the Act earlier relating to taxability of ‘hand made wire mesh’ was inserted vide notification number 04/XXVII(8)/2006 dated 21.01.2006, which was changed vide notification number 560/XXVII(8)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 and a new entry “wire mesh manufactured through warp and weft 'tana bana'” was substituted. From the perusal of the language of these two entries, it is not pretty clear that 'hand made wire mesh' and 'wire mesh manufactured through warp and weft on ‘tana bana' “ are different commodities with different process of manufacturing. The provisions of section 22 of the erstwhile UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand through modification and adaptation order, 2002 and that of section 30 of the VAT Act, 2005 are more or less similarly worded. The respondent/assessee was assessed to tax on manufactured item treating it as 'hand made wire mesh' @ 4 percent. The process of manufacturing of wire mesh on tana bana system being different, cannot be rectified under section 30 of the Act treating this mistake as apparent on the face of the record. ‘Hand made wire mesh' and 'wire mesh manufactured on tana bana system' are the same or not, is definitely a debatable issue and as such mistakes relating to debatable issues cannot be rectified under section 22 of the Act. We are placing our reliance on the finding recorded by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of CST Vs. Bharat Bone Mill, Deoriya STR Number 150/1990 decided on 20.10.2003 (2004 NTN Vol. 24-300 All. HC). We find substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. Cons