2010 (2) TMI 1096 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non consideration of submissions while making the order - Held that - We set aside the impugned orders passed under section 21(2) of the Trade Tax Act for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 under the Act and the matters are remanded back to the Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes Ghaziabad Zone Ghaziabad to pass the orders afresh in accordance with law. The Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes Ghaziabad Zone Ghaziabad is directed to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices. The limitation provided in the Act may not be a bar in passing the fresh orders

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order under U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act for assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07.
Consideration of submissions in reply to notices under U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Validity of orders passed mechanically in the interest of Revenue.
Remand of the matter to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
Consideration of submissions in reply by the Additional Commissioner.
Applicability of limitation in passing fresh orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated January 20, 2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ghaziabad Zone, under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. The petitioner contended that the submissions made in the reply to notices under the U.P. Trade Tax Act were not considered while passing the impugned orders, which were approved solely in the interest of Revenue. It was argued that such orders were flawed as the submissions were not taken into account, leading to a request for setting them aside. The petitioner highlighted that the U.P. Trade Tax Act provisions were adopted by section 13 of the Act, emphasizing the importance of due consideration of submissions in the decision-making process.

The High Court examined the impugned orders and found that the submissions from the petitioner's reply were not considered at all, and the approval was granted mechanically, solely in the interest of Revenue. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the necessity for authorities to provide reasons and make informed decisions rather than mechanical approvals. Relying on previous judgments, the Court set aside the impugned orders passed under section 21(2) of the Trade Tax Act for the mentioned assessment years, directing the matter to be remanded back to the Additional Commissioner to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The Additional Commissioner was specifically instructed to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices, emphasizing the importance of due process and reasoned decision-making.

Regarding the limitation for passing fresh orders, the Court referred to a Division Bench decision which held that the period of limitation would not apply when initiating proceedings after a court sets aside previous orders. The Court stressed that while the limitation may not be a bar, fresh orders must be passed within a reasonable period, based on the facts of each case. Upholding the Division Bench's view, the Court clarified that the authorities must act within a reasonable timeframe, ensuring that the absence of limitation does not lead to undue delays. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and the Court's decision was in line with the principles of law and procedural fairness, emphasizing the need for reasoned and lawful decision-making processes.