1970 (1) TMI 68 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Application under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948; Setting aside ex parte assessment order; Exercise of suo motu powers by Additional Judge (Revisions); Relevance of time limitation in setting aside ex parte order; Justification of exercising suo motu powers by the Judge (Revisions); Questions of law raised by the assessee.

Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, where the Sales Tax Officer passed an ex parte assessment order against the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59. The assessee applied for setting aside the ex parte order, which was eventually set aside by the Sales Tax Officer due to the absence of the assessee. However, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision against this decision. The Additional Judge (Revisions) allowed the revision, setting aside not only the restoration order but also the original assessment order, remanding the case for fresh assessment. The assessee, aggrieved by this decision, applied for reference which was rejected.

The two main questions raised by the assessee were regarding the relevance of time limitation in setting aside an ex parte order and the justification of the Additional Judge (Revisions) in exercising suo motu powers. The court analyzed the provisions of section 30 of the Act, which allows the assessing authority to set aside an ex parte assessment order if satisfied that the assessee did not receive notice or was prevented from appearing. The court noted that the use of the term "may" in the provision indicates discretion for the assessing authority to refuse reopening based on other circumstances of the case.

The court considered the relevance of time limitation in setting aside the ex parte order, noting that reopening the proceedings would render a fresh assessment time-barred. It was held that if setting aside the ex parte order results in a fresh assessment becoming time-barred, the assessing authority would be justified in refusing relief under section 30. The Judge (Revisions) was deemed justified in exercising suo motu powers to set aside the original assessment order and direct a fresh assessment to protect the revenue's interest and provide relief to the assessee.

While the questions raised were considered legal in nature, the court found the answers obvious and not subject to doubt, thus dismissing the application with costs assessed at Rs. 50. The decision affirmed the actions of the Judge (Revisions) in exercising suo motu powers and setting aside the original assessment order for a fresh assessment, ensuring the balance of interests between the assessee and the revenue.