2022 (11) TMI 1141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. By filing this Revision, the revisionist-assessee for payment of Commercial Tax has prayed to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Tribunal on 16.06.2017, whereby his appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment/orders by the First Appellate Court on 27.12.2016 and by the Tax Assessing Order dated 27.03.2015. 2. The question of law for determination in this case, is: "Whether the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in holding that the revisionist is not entitled to reduce the levy of Central Sales Tax @ 1% for the financial year 2010-11 onwards) after the Capital Investment of Plant and Machinery, having exceeded R. 25 Crores in it's Unit-1, as on 18.03.2010, is erroneous in the facts of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rer and that as to what would constitute the total Capital Investment in the Plant and Machinery of the Unit shall be determined by a Committee constituted by the State Government in this behalf." 4. It is also born out from the record that the impugned Notification does not mention or place any limit on the time period upto which the above said confessional rate of 1% CST would be applicable to the eligible manufacturing units. 5. The Government of Uttarakhand later on reconsidered the matter regarding the limit of the capital investment on the Plant and Machinery making it eligible for reduced rate of 1% of CST fixed and revised its policy decision vide Notification No. 822 issued on 03.07.2004, by virtue of which, the investment li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessing Officer in pursuance also rejected the reliance placed by the revisionist in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M/s Industrial Coal Enterprises (Civil) Appeal No. 7451 of 1993, dated 24.02.1999 on the ground that the facts of the case, the present revisionist are different from the facts in reported cases. An appeal was preferred by the present revisionist to the Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, who vide judgement dated 22.10.2016, dismissed the Appeal on the ground that the capital investment in the Plant and Machinery of the unit no.1 exceeds Rs. 25 crores as on 18.03.2010 and, therefore, the Notification No. 822 dated 03.07.2004 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand on the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elf assessed the capital investment. The learned counsel appearing of the revisionist has taken us to the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunals. A careful reading of all the orders reveal that the total capital investment has never been assessed by any Committee as envisaged under Condition No.1 of the Notification referred to above. Thus, it is clear that the law governing the field provided for the assessment of the capital investment by a Committee whereas the same has never been done in this case. 10. It is trite that if the law provides that a particular procedure has to be followed while deciding an issue or a lis before the authorities then the procedure should be followed according to the law established and not....