2011 (11) TMI 591 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of assessment proceedings for multiple years under U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Compliance with the limitation period for reassessment orders.
3. Allegations of falsification of records to meet the limitation period requirement.
4. Validity of the explanation provided by the Sales Tax Officer regarding the preparation of a duplicate file and assessment orders.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition involved a stay on assessment proceedings for the years 1979-80 to 1981-82 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, based on a remand order dated July 31, 1984. The petitioner's appeals were allowed, leading to a remand for reassessment.

2. The critical issue revolved around the compliance with the limitation period for reassessment orders as per sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act. The question was whether the remand orders were passed within one year from the date of service on the Department. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was not passed within the stipulated time frame.

3. Allegations were made regarding the falsification of records to meet the limitation period requirement. The petitioner contended that a duplicate file was prepared, and an order was purportedly made within the limitation period without serving the remand orders on the petitioner. It was claimed that the records were manipulated to show compliance with the timeframe.

4. The Sales Tax Officer provided a detailed explanation in a counter-affidavit, addressing the circumstances leading to the preparation of the duplicate file and the assessment orders. The court found the explanation plausible and did not find any grounds to doubt the officer's version. The officer's account was supported by original records of notices sent to the assessee, along with the process server's endorsement.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling it devoid of merits based on the satisfactory explanation provided by the Sales Tax Officer and the lack of evidence to support the allegations of falsification of records.