KOHLI SUPPLIERS Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the assessee is that it is engaged in the business of stationery, cement, bricks, etc. It is a registered dealer with the department. The assessee has also utilized import declaration form-XVI and form-C for the purposes of import of goods. At the time of assessment, it was noticed that the assessee has sold bricks worth Rs.47,02,272.75/- and has not admitted any tax liability on these sales of bricks, which attracted tax @ 12.5 % up to 15.11.2007 and @ 4% thereafter. A show-cause notice was served on him. Despite adjournments, he did not explain any cogent reason regarding the taxability to be assessed on the sales of bricks. The Assessing Authority vide its order dated 31.03.2011 assessed the tax on the sales of bricks and a demand of Rs.4,90,294/- was raised. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred a first appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal on 24.08.2011 and set-aside the assessed tax on the sales of bricks worth Rs. 47,02,272/-by holding that the disputed supply of bricks is liable to be deducted from the gross turnover, being part of accommodation sales, as envisaged under Rule 13(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Rules, 2005. Aggrieved by the same, a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 03.01.2013, allowed the appeal, set-aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) and restored the order of the Assessing Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the instant revision was filed.

(2.) By the order dated 04.04.2013, the revision was admitted on the following question of law. Whether the revisionist/assessee had supplied bricks, in question, without profit to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, and was it entitled to the benefit of Rule 13(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

(3.) Shri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous; the Tribunal drew its entire conclusions based on assumptions; there is no reason for the Tribunal to draw such assumptions; the material on record would clearly indicate that the bricks were supplied free of cost to the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited after bearing the expenses towards freight, loading-unloading charges; and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error. It is further contended that the interest charged is at 15%. In terms of Section 34(4), the same is an incorrect application of law. The assessee would be attracted by the provisions of Section 34(6) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which entails an interest of 9% per annum. The same is disputed by Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned brief holder appearing for the State of Uttarakhand.