2008 (8) TMI 832 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:

1. Validity of setting aside an order under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act by the Trade Tax Tribunal despite relevant information being available at the time of assessment.

Analysis:

The High Court considered a revision against the Trade Tax Tribunal's order related to the assessment year 1991-92. The dealer, involved in the business of raw hide and skin, disclosed no sales or purchases during the assessment. The assessing authority accepted this and passed the assessment order summarily. However, the Deputy Commissioner revised this order under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act upon finding evidence that the dealer was transporting raw hide for sale outside the state. The Tribunal set aside the revision order, questioning the consideration of relevant information during the original assessment. The main legal question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order under section 10B despite the assessing authority possibly neglecting crucial information available at the time of assessment.

The Court noted the absence of any discussion in the summary assessment order and the presence of evidence suggesting the dealer's involvement in raw hide sales. The revising authority highlighted information from January 15, 1992, indicating the dealer's activities outside the state. The Court emphasized that non-consideration of available information amounts to impropriety under section 10B, allowing revision based on illegality or impropriety. The Tribunal's failure to determine if the assessing authority had the information when passing the original order led to the order's invalidation. The Court stressed that the Tribunal should have assessed whether the information was accessible to the assessing authority during the initial assessment, emphasizing the broad scope of section 10B in allowing revisions for impropriety.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for rehearing. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal considering the observations made, ensuring compliance with the law. No costs were awarded in this judgment.