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: : -.

CNR: UKHC010064112026

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

CTR/3353/2026

Filing Date

21-04-2026

Registration No

CTR/6/2026

Registration Date

21-04-2026

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)

Acts & Sections

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

Petitioner(s)

GAYATRI IRON AND STEEL

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

Respondent(s)

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

Hearing History

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

22-04-2026

FRESH CASES AS DEFECTIVE -236

Orders

04-05-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta,Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash Upadhyay

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case