AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
1) The present revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the Commercial Tax Appellate Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun Bench, Dehradun, in Second Appeal No. 50 / 2017 [2009-2010 (Provincial)… Tax Assessment Section 25(7)], dated 07.01.2020. The said Second Appeal preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed by the said Tribunal following its earlier decision dated 01.07.2013, in the case of the respondent-assessee itself, relating to the Assessment Years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, which were considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 5 of 2013, 06 of 2013 and 07 of 2013.
2) It is not in dispute that the Revenue had preferred revision, being Commercial Tax Revision No. 43 of 2018, arising out of a similar order, passed by the same Tribunal, in Second Appeal No. 08 of 2013, relating to the previous year 2009-2010, in the case of M/s Bansal Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee.
3) The said Commercial Tax Revision No. 43 of 2018 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court holding as follows:
Learned brief holder appearing for the revisionist, submits that the question of law that arises for consideration in this revision as to whether the goods attract tax @ 4% or 12.5%, is since answered in favour of the assessee for previous year namely 2008-09 in the case of the assessee itself. Therefore, for the present year in question namely 2009-10, the same requires to be applied.
We have heard learned counsels.
On considering the contentions, we are of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this revision. The position of law has since been answered in favour of the assessee in the previous year 2008-09, therefore, the same cannot change for the next year. Hence, we do not find any good ground to entertain this revision.
The revision is dismissed.
4) We have heard learned counsel for the revisionist. We have also perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
5) The Tribunal has extracted the reasoning adopted by it while rendering its judgment dated 01.07.2013, which forms the basis of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The said reasoning shows that the Tribunal - while passing the judgment dated 01.07.2013, applied the test of reversibility while dealing with the submission of the Revenue, that a copper or aluminium wire could not be considered to be the same product as a coil made of copper or aluminium, as the case may be. The Tribunal found that the process of converting a copper or aluminium wire into a coil is a reversible process, and if the process is reversed, the aluminium / copper wire regains its shape and property without undergoing any change. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the submission of the Revenue.
6) In the light of the aforesaid, in our view, no question of law arises. We also see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Commercial Tax Revision No. 43 of 2018, decided on 30.12.2020.
7) Accordingly, in our view, no question of law arises, and we dismiss this revision.