Court No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No. 47 of 2008 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. …….Revisionist Versus M/s Patel Engineering Ltd., Gangotri Road, Bhatwari, District – Uttarkashi. ……Respondent Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the revisionist. Sri S.K. Posti, learned Counsel for the respondent. 26th December, 2008 Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia,J. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25.5.2007 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in Second Appeal No. 79/2007 pertaining to Assessment Year 2006-07, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the appellants preferred against the judgment and order of the first appellate authority. 2. Dispute relates to concessional rate of tax under Section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee/respondent is a civil contractor engaged in the business of construction of tunnel etc. and is registered with the Commercial Tax Department for civil works contract since August, 2006. The assessee had applied to the Assessing Officer for including certain items in his certificate of Central Registration under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Act so that he could purchase these items at concessional rate. The Assessing Officer vide his order dated 14.9.2006 ordered to include certain items in the Certificate of Central Registration of the assessee but refused to include certain other items. The dealer filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the first appellate authority i.e. Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The first appellate authority vide his order dated 3.1.2007 remanded the case to the Assessing Officer with direction to issue Form-C for the disputed items as per Section 8(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The revenue/appellants filed second appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the first appellate authority. The second appellate authority vide the impugned order dated 25.5.2007 confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revenue/appellants. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and order of the second appellate authority. Second appellate authority has relied upon its judgment passed in M/s Costal Project Pvt. Ltd., Dharasu, Uttarkashi v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttaranchal, which was affirmed by this Court and also by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. The first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority both have concurrently recorded a finding that the assessee/respondent was entitled to concessional rate of tax in respect of the disputed items and accordingly have reduced the tax payable by the assessee/respondent. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this revision to be determined by this Court. Therefore, revision preferred by the revenue is dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that we are affirming the impugned judgment only on the point of assessee’s entitlement of concessional rate of tax in respect of the disputed items and the remarks made by the Tribunal against the authorities below are hereby quashed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) (P.C.Verma,J.) 26.12.2008 26.12.2008 Prabodh