IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

AND

SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.

22^nd APRIL, 2022

COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION No. 23 OF 2013

Between:

Prabhagiya Vipran Prabandhak,

Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam.

…Revisionist

and

Commissioner, Commercial Tax,

Uttarakhand Dehradun

…Respondent

Counsel for the revisionist.

: Mr. S.K. Posti, the learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Mr. V.K. Kapruwan

and Mr. Ashutosh Posti, the learned

counsel.

Counsel for the respondent.

: Ms. Puja Banga, the learned Brief

Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made

the following

JUDGMENT : (per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.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 revisionist-

assessee 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.

2

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

3

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 Co