2006 (4) TMI 548 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority.
2. Validity of the notices issued under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
3. Nature of the notices - whether they are for reassessment or fresh assessment.
4. Service of notice and its implications under Rule 77 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:
The Trade Tax Tribunal set aside the assessment orders for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the grounds that the Trade Tax Officer, Sector-IV, Gorakhpur, lacked territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner. Kushinagar is a separate district, and there was no evidence that the assessment files were assigned to the Trade Tax Officer, Sector-IV, Gorakhpur, under Rule 6(8) of the Trade Tax Rules.

2. Validity of the Notices Issued Under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Padrauna, District - Kushinagar, for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99. The petitioner argued that the notices were jurisdictional and not validly served, thus the respondent wrongly assumed jurisdiction.

3. Nature of the Notices - Reassessment or Fresh Assessment:
The core question was whether the impugned notices could be construed as reassessment notices or notices for fresh assessment. The court concluded that the notices were for fresh assessment under Section 7 of the Act, not reassessment under Section 21(1). The term "fresh order of assessment" in Section 21(4-A) indicates an assessment order, not a reassessment order. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was clear in using the term "fresh order of assessment."

4. Service of Notice and Its Implications Under Rule 77 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules:
The petitioner argued that the service of notice by affixation was not valid under Rule 77. However, the court noted that if the proceedings were under Section 7 of the Act, the question of service of notice was of little consequence. The court held that the impugned notices were not for reassessment, thus the service of notice under Rule 77 was not applicable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned notices were for fresh assessment and not reassessment. The reliance on National Chemical Products v. State of U.P. was found to be distinguishable and misplaced. The court found no merit in the petitions, and no order as to costs was made.