IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Trade Tax Revision No. 34 of 2009 Doon Valley Brewers Ltd. ………….Revisionist. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and others. ..……Respondents. Mr. R.K. Raizada, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The solitary question which arises consideration in the present revision petition is whether the revisionist could have raised a question for determination of a disputed issue by invoking Section 57 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “2005 Act”). So as to determine the veracity of the issue, Section 57 of the 2005 Act is being extracted hereunder: “57. Determination of Disputed Questions- (1) If any question arises, otherwise than in a proceeding pending before a court or before an Assessing Authority under Section 25, Section 26 or Section 29, whether, for the purpose of this Act- (a) any person or association of persons, society, club, firm, company, corporation, undertaking or Government Department is a dealer; or (b) any particular thing done to any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of that term; or (c) any transaction is a sale or purchase and, if so, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase price therefore; or (d) any particular dealer is required to obtain registration; or (e) any tax is payable in respect of any particular sale or purchase and, if so, the rate thereof, the person or the dealer concerned may, after depositing the fee specified in Section 74 submit an application to the Commissioner along with such documents as may be prescribed. 2 (2) The Commissioner shall, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, decide as he deems fit the question so arising: Provided that before giving such decision, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, ask an officer subordinate to him to make such enquiries as he considers necessary for the decision of the question. (3) No decision of the Commissioner under this section shall affect the validity or operation of any order passed earlier by any Assessing Officer, Appellate Authority, Revising Authority or the Tribunal. (4) No question which arises from an order already passed, in the case of applicant, by any authority under this Act or the Tribunal, shall be entertained to be determined under this section. (5) Except as provided in sub-section (3), a decision given by the Commissioner under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Section 53 and Section 55 be final and binding on the applicant, the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority. (6) A copy of the decision given under this section shall be sent to the applicant and the Assessing Authority concerned.” Sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the 2005 Act defines precisely the circumstances under which determination of a question can be sought. Sub-section (1) clearly mandates that such a question can be raised when no proceedings are pending before a Court or before an Assessing Authority under Sections, 25, 26 or 29 of the 2005 Act. Undisputedly, the issue of which determination is sought by the revisionist, had arisen repeatedly during the course of proceedings pending before the Assessing Authority, whereupon the Assessing Authority levied tax at a specified rate. That having been done, the issue canvassed must be deemed to have been answered in the manner determined by the Assessing Authority. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it was open to the revisionist to assail the assessment order or subsequent orders thereupon passed by the Authorities under the provisions 3 of the 2005 Act. The question raised by the revisionist for determination having been settled inter-parties in earlier assessment years can not be raised under Section 57 of the 2005 Act. The issue having arisen earlier, and having been determined, if not directly, then inferentially, as the revisionist was required to pay tax at 32.05%, the question posed for determination must be deemed to have been adjudicated upon under Section 25/26 of the 2005 Act. In view of the aforesaid determination, sub section (1) of Section 57 itself disentitles the revisionist from raising such a question for determination. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that the impugned order rendered by the Tribunal (Commercial Tax), Dehradun dated 18.12.2009 was fully justified. The instant Trade Tax Revision is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J) 22.2.2010 Rathour