The main legal point established is that the Mandi Shulk should not be included in the sale price of goods and merchandise dealt with by the Nigam, based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

In this Commercial Tax Revision, the revisionist-assessee i.e. M/s Prabhagiya Vipran Prabandhak, Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Tanakpur, has assailed the judgment passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Haldwani Bench, Haldwani, in Second Appeal No. 71 of 2012 filed under Section 53 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for brevity), dismissing his appeal, wherein he has challenged the assessment of the year 2007-08 under the Act, and inclusion of the ‘Mandi Shulk’ in the sale price of the goods and merchandise dealt with by the Nigam.

2. The facts of the case, leading to filing of this Commercial Tax Revision, are that the revisionistassessee represents the State owned Corporation, which is engaged in the business of trading forest produce viz. timber, firewood, jadi booti etc. The revisionist-assessee was assessed to tax under Section 25(6) of the Act vide assessment order dated 26.04.2011, and the account books kept by the assessee were accepted. However, the amount charged as Mandi Shulk and development cess on the sale of forest produce from buyers was not declared as a part of the taxable turnover by the revisionist-assessee. The Assessing Authority, vide assessment order dated 26.04.2011, held that the amount realized towards mandi shulk and development cess from the buyers will be included as a part of the taxable turnover as per the provisions laid down under Sub-Section (42) of Section 2 of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by such an order, the revisionist-assessee filed a First Appeal before the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeals) being Appeal No. 417 of 2011. The learned Joint Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 17.02.2012, confirmed the findings recorded by the assessing authority on this issue. Such order of the learned Joint Commissioner (Appeals) was again challenged before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Haldwani Bench, Haldwani in Second Appeal No. 71 of 2012. The said Second Appeal was dismissed on 21.09.2012. Thereafter, the revisionist-assessee filed Commercial Tax Revision No. 26 of 2012, under Section 55 of the Act, before this Court. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2012, remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the issue involved in the case afresh. Accordingly, the Second Appeal No. 71 of 2012 was restored to its original number, and was again re-heard de novo. The said Second Appeal was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2013, which is impugned in this case.

4. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the definition of ‘sale price’ as found under Sub-Section (42) of Section 2 of the Act, and the unreported case of M/s Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 681 of 2009 decided on 01.09.2010, and came to the conclusion that the Mandi Shulk will be the part of the ‘sale price’, and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Such judgment passed on remand has been assailed in this Commercial Tax Revision.

5. Mr. S.K. Posti, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist-assessee relied on the definition of the ‘sale price’ available in the Act, and Section 17(b)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, as applicable to the State of Uttaranchal vide Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002, which has been repealed in the meantime by virtue of Section 95 of the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that, as per the definition under Section 17(iii)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”, for brevity), the Mandi Shulk is to be collected from the buyers, and in lieu of its collection as an agent on behalf of the Mandi Samiti and ultimate remittance to the Mandi Samiti itself, it does not go to the funds of the Nigam. Hence, no amount c