9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Pioneer Tanneries Glue Works, Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1991] 83 STC 1; 1991 UPTC 585. Subsequently, by Act No. 8 of 1992 provisions of section 3-AAAA has been reintroduced with effect from April 1, 1974. In the matter of Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [1993] 88 STC 98 (SC); 1993 UPTC 318, the decision in the case of Pioneer Tanneries Glue Works, Kanpur v. State of U.P. [1991] 83 STC 1 (All.); 1991 UPTC 585 has been overruled and the provisions of section 3-AAAA before the amendment and after amendment have been held valid. In view of decision of the apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 88 STC 98; 1993 UPTC 318 and in view of reintroduction of section 3-AAAA by Act No. 8 of 1992 with effect from April 1, 1974, applications under section 22 of the Act were moved before the Tribunal on August 20, 1993. The said applications under section 22 of the Act were rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated October 25, 1994 on the ground that as per section 17(2) of validation clause of Act No. 8 of 1992, application should be filed by September 30, 1992 for review of assessment order and since in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 22 had to be passed within three years from the date of order or from one year from the date of amendment. He submitted that the orders sought to be rectified were dated November 14, 1991 for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1981-82 and May 16, 1991 for the assessment year 1981-82 and the order was rectified and such order can only be rectified within three years under section 17(3) and therefore, rectification of the said order by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated June 30, 1995 is erroneous and without jurisdiction. 5.. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is absolutely correct and in accordance with law. He submitted that the applications filed under section 22 of the Act dated August 20, 1993 should be disposed of under the provisions of section 22 of the Act and not under section 17(3) of the Act No. 8 of 1992. He submitted that the Tribunal has rejected the application dated August 20, 1993 moved under section 22 of the Act treating them as a review applications and rejecting the same as time barred being filed on September 30, 1992, limitation contemplated under section 17(2), was patent error. He submitted that when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed any order modifying, setting aside or quashing (wholly or in part), such assessment, levy, collection, penalty or demand and such assessment or order becomes inconsistent with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of any party to the proceeding or the Commissioner of Sales Tax may by September 30, 1992, make an application to such authority or court for review of the assessment or order and thereupon, such authority or court may review the proceeding and make such order, varying or revising the order previously made, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act. Section 17(3) of Act No. 8 of 1992: The assessing, appellate or revising authority, as the case may be, may within a period of one year from the commencement of this section or within the period specified in section 22 of the principal Act, whichever expires later, make any rectification in any order passed by it where such rectification becomes necessary in consequence of the amendment of the principal Act: Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not sold in the same form and condition, therefore, section 3-AAAA of the Act was applicable. Tribunal has deleted levy of tax under section 3-AAAA only on the ground that the provisions of section 3-AAAA was declared ultra vires by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Pioneer Tanneries Glue Works v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1991] 83 STC 1; g1991 UPTC 585. Thereafter section 3-AAAA has been introduced by Act No. 8 of 1992 with effect from April 1, 1974 and the decision of division Bench in the case of Pioneer Tanneries [1991] 83 STC 1 (All.); 1991 UPTC 585 has been overruled and provisions of section 3-AAAA before amendment and after amendment have been held valid by the apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in [1993] 88 STC 98; 1993 UPTC 318. It is settled principle of law that if any decision is given placing reliance on the decision which has been overruled or if declared ultra vires, provision is subsequently reintroduced by the amendment with retrospective effect, provision of section 22 applies and that order can be rectified on the basis of decisions of apex Court and on the basis of amended provisions (see Karam Chand Thap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
