9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23, 2002. The Tribunal has also not considered the effect of the issuance or non-issuance of the notice after the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner. In view of the above the order of the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is not fair on the part of the Tribunal to ignore or avoid to follow the direction given by this court. If the court gives any direction to the Tribunal it should be strictly followed without any fail. A legal duty is cast on the Tribunal to comply with the direction of the court. The issue No. 1 which was directed to be decided goes to the root of the matter. The question involving jurisdiction and validity of the proceeding under section 21 of the Act ought to have been decided with all s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted that initiation of proceeding under section 21 of the Act was barred by limitation inasmuch as the notice under section 21 of the Act was issued without obtaining the sanction from the Additional Commissioner. It was further submitted that at the time of issue of notice, there was no material which led to form the belief that there was escaped assessment and the reason has not been recorded while issuing the notice under section 21 of the Act which is required to be recorded in view of the Circular issued by the Commissioner. This court vide order dated February 9, 2007(1) allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded back the matter to the Tribunal to decide the three issues, namely, (1) whether the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued prior to the grant of sanction by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the entire proceeding was illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Limited v. State of U.P. reported in [2007] 5 VST 284; [2006] UPTC 1128, in which the notice issued under section 21 of the Act prior to obtaining of the sanction by the Additional Commissioner under the proviso to section 21(2) of the Act has been held illegal. Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the Tribunal has completely failed to record any finding about any notice issued subsequent to sanction of the order dated August 23, 2002 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the proceeding under section 21 of the Act ought to have been decided with all seriousness. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide issue No. 1 afresh as directed by this court in the order dated February 9, 2007 Reported as Continental Cement Factory v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 24 VST 358 (All). passed by Trade Tax Revision No. 801 of 2006. The Tribunal is directed to record a categorical finding whether after the grant of sanction by the Additional Commissioner on August 23, 2002 any notice under section 21 of the Act was issued by the assessing authority. If not issued, matter may be decided in the light of the decision of the Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
