2025:UHC:5001-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/B) No.120 of 2025 16 June, 2025 J.V.M. Industries --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Dr. Govind Singh Latwal and Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State through V.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Brief Holder for the State. 2. The issue, in a nutshell, that arises for determination in the instant writ petition, is whether the amount levied as tax due is correct or not? 3. The case of the petitioner is that, on account of an addition of a numerical figure, the same has resulted in an arithmetical miscalculation and it has 2025:UHC:5001-DB 2 resulted in a situation, where the tax demand is more than the taxable value of the turnover / transactions undertaken by the petitioner. 4. On the last date of hearing, the Court had directed the learned counsel for the State to secure instructions with regard to the case of arithmetical error canvassed by the petitioner. 5. Today, learned counsel for the State would submit that the department had issued 4-5 notices and, despite the notices, no explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that assessment period relates to 2018- 2019 and that the notices were issued four years thereafter in 2023. 7. Be that as it may, the competent authority, having issued a notice and presuming for arguments sake that the demand under the notice was erroneous, the petitioner, as an assessee, was duty bound to affect a reply and point out the error. The failure has resulted in the present situation with the petitioner being forced to approach this Court. 2025:UHC:5001-DB 3 8. Learned counsel for the State/respondent would fairly submit that, in the event, there being a miscalculation or an arithmetical error on account of introduction of an additional numerical figure, the department is always open for reconsideration of the same and the matter may be remitted back. 9. Having heard the counsels, we are of the opinion that the error being pointed out by the petitioner, being mere arithmetical error, the provisions of Section 161 can be invoked by the petitioner. That apart, the second proviso to Section 161 reads as under:- “Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission” 10. The case canvassed by the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit of the second proviso. 11. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed in part. The petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an application under the second proviso to Section 161 of the Act, 2017 and, if such an application is made, the same shall be considered 2025:UHC:5001-DB 4 without reference to the limitation imposed under the first proviso and the same shall be considered and disposed of on merits by the A.O. Till such disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 161, there shall be no coercive action, subject to the condition that the application, invoking the provision of Section 161, shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. Petition stands ordered, accordingly. There shall no order as to costs. (G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 16.06.2025 BS