9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 1026 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the orders are vitiated, inasmuch as the submissions have not been considered and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside? Held that - The impugned order reveals that the submissions made in the reply have not been considered at all and the approval has been granted mechanically only in the interest of Revenue. We set aside the impugned order passed under section 21(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur to pass the order afresh in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order which the petitioner undertakes to file within two weeks from today. The Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur is directed to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices.
Issues:
Challenge to order dated February 25, 2010 under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for assessment years 2003-04 based on non-consideration of submissions made in reply to notices under section 21(2) of the Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, alleging that the submissions made in the reply to the notices were not considered, and approval was granted solely in the interest of Revenue. Citing precedents like S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad, Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly, and Yadav Traders v. State of U.P., the petitioner contended that the orders were flawed due to the lack of consideration of submissions. The learned standing counsel suggested remanding the matter for a fresh order in accordance with the law, as done in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad. The High Court, upon perusing the impugned order, found that the submissions from the reply were not considered at all, and the approval was granted mechanically in the interest of Revenue. Referring to the case law precedent from Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly, the Court emphasized the necessity for the Additional Commissioner to provide reasons while granting approval for initiating proceedings under section 21(2) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur to pass a fresh order within a specified timeframe, with a directive to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices. Regarding the limitation issue, the Court relied on the decision in S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad, stating that the period of limitation would not apply when initiating proceedings after a court sets aside the previous order. The Court emphasized that while the limitation period may not be a barrier, the fresh orders must be passed within a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances of each case. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed based on the above considerations.
|
