The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the assessment order being failed to get approval on total capital investment from the assessment committee while passing the assessment.
The revisionist assessee stated that the State of Uttarakhand issued an Industrial Policy Vision Note in the year 2001, to create a conducive environment of rapid and ecological sustainable industrial development in the State. The policy envisages providing a concessional rate to such industries of 1% CST as against 4% (later on revised to 2%) to the manufacturers registered in the State under the CST Act.
It was evident from the record that the impugned Notification does not mention or place any limit on the period up to which the above said Confessional rate of 1% CST would apply to the eligible manufacturing units.
It was clear that as per the scheme envisaged by The Government Order, the total capital investment in Plant and Machinery by the assessee has to be determined by a committee constituted by the State Government on that behalf. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessment after being determined by any Committee.
It was settled 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 otherwise.
The Court comprising Justice Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Shri Ramesh Chandra Khulbe allowed Central Tax Revision and set aside the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the order passed by the Assessing Authority. Further remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
Mr Arvind Kumar and Ms Vandana Singh Mehra appeared for the revisionist and Mr Mohit Maulekhi appeared for the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan Premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
