2023 (4) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....days, and the revisionist has raised a question which requires determination by this Court, we are inclined to condone the delay of 93 days in preferring the present revision. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. CTR No. 44 of 2022 3. Issue notice. Learned counsel appears and accepts notice. 4. The question of law which arises for consideration in the present revision is whether Mandi Fees charged by the Mandi could be treated as a part of sale price under Section 2(42) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act. 5. The revisionist places reliance on a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax Revision No.23 of 2013, dated 22.04.2022. The Coordinate Bench has held in Parag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement; (b) in relation to transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) the valuable consideration or hire charges received or receivable for such transfer of right to use goods but does not include any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or damages for breach of agreement; (c) in relation to the transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of works contract, the valuable consideration paid or payable to a person for the execution of such works contract, less the actual amount representing labour and such other charges as may be prescribed, but does not include any sum payable as a penalty or as compensation or dama....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax under the Act. Thus, we are of the opinion that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar (supra), the sale price shall not include the Mandi Shulk that is collected by the Nigam and deposited with the funds of the Committee. We are further of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in M/s Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 681 of 2009 decided on 01.09.2010 is not a correct view." 6. Consequently, the said revision preferred by the assessee was allowed by this Court. 7. Prima facie, it appears to us that the said decision rendered by this Court requires reconsideration. We say this because the definition of the expression 'sale price', contai....