GAYATRI IRON AND STEEL vs THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX Advocate - C.S.C. — CTR/6/2026

Case under Under Section 55 of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act 2005 Section 55. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010064112026

Filing Number

CTR/3353/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

CTR/6/2026

Registration Date

21-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta , Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

REVISIONS ( 4 )

Sub-Category

COMMERCIAL TAX REVISION ( 7 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Section 55 of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act 2005 Section 55

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAYATRI IRON AND STEEL

    Adv. PULAK RAJ MULLICK,SAHIL MULLICK,SAHIL MULLICK, ,SAHIL MULLICK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX Advocate - C.S.C.

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash UpadhyayView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand admitted Gayatri Iron and Steel's revision petition (CTR No.6/2026) against the Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 04.05.2026. The court accepted the substantial question of law regarding whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner failed to discharge its burden under Section 66 of the VAT Act, 2005, and whether presentation of original C Forms shifts the onus to revenue to prove forgery. The case was listed for further hearing along with related matters CTR No.2 of 2024 and CTR No.3/2024. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Fresh Cases As Defective -236

    Registrar (Judicial)

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CTR/6/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Uttarakhand admitted Gayatri Iron and Steel's revision petition (CTR No.6/2026) against the Commissioner of Commercial Tax on 04.05.2026. The court accepted the substantial question of law regarding whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner failed to discharge its burden under Section 66 of the VAT Act, 2005, and whether presentation of original C Forms shifts the onus to revenue to prove forgery. The case was listed for further hearing along with related matters CTR No.2 of 2024 and CTR No.3/2024. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case