1970 (10) TMI 52 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside of assessment order and appellate order without filing revision.
2. Exercise of suo motu powers by the Judge (Revisions).
3. Requirement of assessment record for setting aside an order.
4. Comparison with relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether it was legal to set aside an assessment order and appellate order without filing a revision. The assessee, a dealer in foodgrains and oil-seeds, was assessed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1959-60. The Additional Judge (Revisions) set aside the appellate order against the proceedings under section 30, even though the assessee did not file a revision petition against the appellate order relating to the assessment. The revising authority found the assessee's absence on the date of hearing to be due to sufficient cause and remanded the case back for a fresh assessment.

2. The Judge (Revisions) exercised suo motu powers under section 10 to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) confirming the assessment order. The Judge believed that to make the decision to reopen the assessment effective, it was necessary to also set aside the appellate order confirming the assessment. The revising authority held that the remedy under section 30 was distinct from the remedy by way of an appeal against the assessment order under section 9, making the revision application maintainable.

3. A contention was raised regarding the necessity of the assessment record being before the Judge (Revisions) for setting aside an order. The Judge (Revisions) did not call for the assessment record, but it was presumed that he proceeded in accordance with the law. The Judge (Revisions) treated the proceedings under section 30 and the assessment separately, setting aside both orders. The absence of two separate records was noted, and it was emphasized that the Judge (Revisions) acted within his jurisdiction.

4. The comparison with relevant Supreme Court decisions highlighted the differences in the cases cited by the learned counsel. The Supreme Court decisions dealt with distinct issues not present in the current case. The judgment concluded by answering the question in favor of the assessee, stating that the assessee was entitled to costs and counsel's fee.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Allahabad High Court addressed the issues of setting aside assessment and appellate orders, the exercise of suo motu powers, the requirement of assessment records, and comparisons with relevant Supreme Court decisions.