1996 (7) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ia) Limited, Barabanki, is the manufacturer of industrial alcohols and organic chemicals. The said firm appointed the petitioner as his stockist/agent for its various sales in the course of inter-State sales. According to the case of the petitioner, it received orders from various ex-U.P. dealers for the purchase of chemicals and the petitioner in turn has placed the orders in respect of such chemicals with Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. Accordingly said goods sent outside U.P. to the places mentioned in the order sent to the petitioner. In all the orders the petitioner had placed on Somaiya Barabanki, the petitioner had specifically mentioned the name and addresses of its ex-U.P. purchasers. Further since these chemicals are excisable com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... survey dated October 25, 1990 which admittedly was much before passing of the original assessment orders for the aforesaid two assessment years in question. The contention of the petitioner is that the transaction in question by transfer of documents of title during the movements of goods from Barabanki to outside U.P. has already been considered in detail in the original assessment orders, hence the notice is bad in law. 6.. On behalf of the State learned Standing Counsel has urged that the notice was issued on the basis of survey hence it cannot be said that the said notice is without any material and if something is found which was not in the original assessment order would constitute to be a ground for issuance of notice under secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onstitute to be a case of change of opinion. The learned counsel for the petitioner thoroughly taken us to the original assessment orders and referred to the notice to show that what is being relied is nothing which is not considered earlier except the inference of the officer concerned on the basis of same material and in our considerate opinion it would constitute to be a case of change of opinion and would not come within the jurisdiction of the notice under section 21 of the Act. The law on the subject is well-settled in Palco Lining Co. v. Sales Tax Officer Sector IV [1983] 54 STC 255 (All); 1983 UPTC 1116, it was held that irrespective of the amplitude of the language used in section 21 of the Act, reassessment proceedings are not per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X