2000 (9) TMI 1036 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Assessment orders challenged by the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner
- Plea of limitation regarding notices under section 21 and section 7(3) of the Act
- Preliminary objection regarding stay order passed by the Supreme Court
- Dismissal of second appeals by the Tribunal
- Applicant's request to argue revisions personally
- Merits of the case for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a sole proprietor, challenged six assessment orders before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on the grounds of notices not served within the prescribed limitation period under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, and 1984-85. The Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter for fresh assessment despite not accepting the plea of limitation. The applicant then appealed under section 10 of the Act, leading to the Tribunal dismissing all the appeals.

2. The applicant raised a preliminary objection based on a stay order issued by the Supreme Court, contending that proceedings should have been stayed. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, confirming that the stay order had been discharged. The applicant's argument regarding the Assistant Commissioner's decision was also addressed, with the court rejecting the preliminary objection due to the absence of any order staying the proceedings.

3. Regarding the merits of the case, the applicant claimed that the notice under section 21 for the assessment year 1982-83 was not served within the limitation period. However, the notice was served by affixation, and the applicant acknowledged its receipt. For the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, where proceedings were completed ex parte, the Tribunal referred to legal precedents stating that procedural irregularities could be rectified by setting aside assessment orders. The Tribunal's decision aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings, affirming the legality of the Tribunal's order. No other substantial points were raised, leading to the dismissal of the revisions without costs.

4. Additionally, the applicant sought permission to argue the revisions personally, withdrawing the power of the advocate initially representing them. The court allowed the applicant to proceed, considering the circumstances, and the applicant admitted to the signatures on the vakalatnama, enabling them to argue the revisions in person. The court addressed this issue and permitted the applicant to proceed with the arguments independently.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeals was upheld, and the revisions were deemed lacking in merit, resulting in their dismissal without any cost implications. The judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues raised by the applicant, including the plea of limitation, preliminary objections, and the merits of the case for the respective assessment years, providing a comprehensive legal assessment and decision.