1996 (2) TMI 512 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the reassessment order was barred by time.
2. Interpretation of sub-sections (4) and (6) of section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
3. Application of Rule 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, 1948.
4. Legal fiction under sub-rule (9) of Rule 68.

Issue 1: Whether the reassessment order was barred by time.
The primary issue was whether the reassessment order passed in remand proceedings was barred by time. The assessee argued that the reassessment order was not made within the stipulated period of one year from the service of the remand order on the State Representative. The Sales Tax Tribunal dismissed this contention, stating that the period of one year should be computed from the date the assessing authority received the copy of the remand order, not from when the State Representative was served.

Issue 2: Interpretation of sub-sections (4) and (6) of section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
Sub-section (4) of section 21 states: "If an order of assessment is set aside and the case is remanded for reassessment by any authority under the provisions of this Act or by a competent court, the order of reassessment may be made within one year from the date of receipt by the assessing authority of the copy of the order remanding the case, or by December 31, 1982, whichever is later."
Sub-section (6) states: "Where the proceedings for assessment or reassessment for any assessment year remains stayed under the orders of any court or authority, the period commencing on the date of stay order and ending with the date of receipt by the assessing authority concerned of the order vacating the stay, shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation provided in this section."
The court emphasized that the language of these provisions is clear and unambiguous, indicating that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date the assessing authority receives the remand order, not from the date the State Representative receives it.

Issue 3: Application of Rule 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, 1948.
Rule 68 provides the procedure for disposal of appeals by the appellate authority or the Tribunal. Sub-rule (7) mandates that a copy of every order under section 10 shall be delivered to or served on the parties concerned free of charge. Sub-rule (9) states that the provisions of rules 77 and 77-A apply mutatis mutandis to the service of notice, summons, orders, etc., and includes a proviso that service on the State Representative shall be deemed to be service on the Commissioner.

Issue 4: Legal fiction under sub-rule (9) of Rule 68.
The court held that the legal fiction created under sub-rule (9) of Rule 68, which deems service on the State Representative as service on the Commissioner, should not be extended to mean service on the assessing authority. The court stated that legal fictions are created for specific purposes and should not be extended beyond their legitimate field. Therefore, the service of the order on the State Representative cannot be deemed as service on the assessing authority.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reassessment order was made within the stipulated time as the period of limitation should be computed from the date the assessing authority received the remand order. The revision was dismissed, and the court held that there was no merit in the contentions raised by the assessee. The statutory provisions were clear, and the court could not rewrite the statute or extend the legal fiction beyond its intended purpose. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →