IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 10 OF 2023

13^TH JUNE, 2023

BETWEEN:

Commissioner Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun

…..Revisionist.

And

M/s Birla Yamaha Ltd., Dehradun

….Respondent.

Counsel for the Revisionist

:

Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief

Holder.

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The revisionist has preferred the present revision

under Section 11 of the Trade Tax Act, read with Section 80

(12) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to assail

the order dated 24.07.2010, with separate application to seek

condonation of delay of 4592 days in filing this revision.

2.

The reasons disclosed in the applications seeking

condonation of delay are that there were discussions at

different levels in relation to the impugned judgment dated

24.07.2010 and time was taken in obtaining permission,

contacting the lawyers, translating Hindi documents, and

undertaking correspondence with the counsel for preparation

of the present revision.

2

3.

In our view, the aforesaid do not constitute

sufficient cause to explain the immense delay in filing the

present revision.

4.

We, therefore, dismiss the Delay Condonation

Application, being No. 01 of 2023.

5.

Since the Delay Condonation Application has been

dismissed, the present revision also stands dismissed.

6.

The revisionist should assess the feasibility of

preferring such like revision, when the delay is so immense,

as further resources of the State have to be expanded in

preferring the present revision. In our view, public money

should be utilized more prudently.

7.

We

further

direct

the

Commissioner

State/

Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to review all such

cases in the light of the aforesaid observations before

deciding to prefer an Appeal / Revision before this Court,

which are highly belated, and which do not provide a genuine

cause to explain the immense delay in filing such petitions.

8.

Learned counsel for the revisionist states that,

since permission for filing of the present revision had been

granted in the year 2010, whereas, we directed examination

of such cases before filing of the revision vide our order dated

3

24.04.2023 in TTR No.07 of 2023 and other connected

revisions.

9.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)

Dated: 13^th June, 2023

NISHANT