IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 36 OF 2008 Commissioner, Trade Tax / Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ………..Revisionist. Versus M/s Veena Enterprises ……………Respondent. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State / revisionist. None appears for the respondent. 2nd December, 2008 Coram : Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This revision has been preferred under Section 11 (1) of Trade Tax Act read with Section 80 of the Value Added Tax against the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Second Appeal No. 159 of 2007 along with the judgment and order dated 23.6.2007 of Joint Commissioner (Appeal)-2, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand at Dehradun passed in First Appeal NO. 535 of 2006 M/s Veena Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, whereby the courts below quashed the order of the Assessing Officer of imposing entry tax amounting to Rs. 64,540/-. 2 2. Following substantial question arose for determination before us: “Whether, the Trade Tax Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the dealer/assessee was not liable to pay Entry Tax u/s 4 of U.P. Entry Tax Act in respect of a machine allegedly valued for more than 10 lacs and was imported by the dealer?” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Contractor and during the verification of assessment for the A.Y. 2002-03, it was found that the Assessee vide his import declaration form No. 475428 & 475430 imported machines i.e. Bulldozer amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- and Excavation Machine amounting to Rs. 22,27,000/- for its own use from outside the territory of State of Uttarakhand. A notice in this regard was issued to the Assessee and in reply, the Assessee submitted that those machines were imported for use in contract work, which were included in assets of firm. Being unsatisfied with the said reply, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.9.2006 imposed entry tax @ 2% amounting to Rs. 64,540/-. 4. Against the said order, the respondent preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 535 of 2006 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Dehradun, which was allowed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 3 23.6.2007 and the order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Assessing Officer was set aside. Being aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist preferred Second Appeal No. 159 of 2007 for assessment year 2002- 03 before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The Second Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 5.12.2007 and the order dated 23.6.2007 was upheld. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence available on record as well as impugned order. 6. After going through the impugned order of the lower appellate Court as well as other relevant documents available on record, we come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises so as to interfere in this revision filed under Section 11 (1) of Trade Tax Act read with Section 80 of the Value Added Tax. The Appeal is concluded by the finding of fact. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 159 of 2007 is affirmed. 7. Consequently, present Trade Tax Revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) 2.12.2008 2.12.2008 Rathour