9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent No. 3 not to initiate reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the notice under section 21(2) of the Act issued by respondent No. 3 for the assessment year 2002-03 (iii) to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated December 18, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2 authorising respondent No. 3 to initiate reassessment proceeding under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (annexure 5 already filed to the writ petition)." The background facts enumerated in the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short, "the U.P. Act") and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of "match boxes" from outside the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of other States and has not disclosed its sale against form F to its assessing authority and if any action is needed can be taken against the dealer who has issued form F and not against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated December 18, 2007 rejected the reply filed by the petitioner and granted the permission to respondent No. 3, i.e., the assessing authority to initiate the reassessment proceeding against the petitioner under section 21(2) of the Act for the year 2002-03 under the U.P. Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. Hence the present writ petition. We have heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdinate to the Additional Commissioner and any reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner would create difficulty in the reassessment proceeding as it would be binding on the assessing authority. He, therefore submitted that the Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in not recording reasons for granting permission/ sanction. We have considered the rival submissions and we find from the record that to the show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 the petitioner had filed its detailed objection. But the Additional Commissioner, respondent No. 2, had not given any reason whatsoever nor has dealt any of the objections raised by the petitioner in his reply. In view of the law laid down by this court in the case of S.K. Traders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
