TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notices. The limitation provided in the Act may not be a bar in passing the fresh orders X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bareilly reported in [2007] 35 NTN 31 and in the case of Yadav Traders v. State of U.P. reported in [2010] 29 VST 107; [2009] UPTC 576. The learned standing counsel states that let the matter be remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad to pass fresh order in accordance with law and the limitation should be saved as has been saved in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad [2009] 26 VST 601 (All). We have perused the impugned orders. The impugned orders reveal that the submissions made in the reply have not been considered at all and the approval has been granted mechanically only in the interest of Revenue. Such orders cannot be sustained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n dated July 12, 2001 cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside." In view of the above, we set aside the impugned orders passed under section 21(2) of the Trade Tax Act for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 under the Act and the matters are remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad to pass the orders afresh in accordance with law. The Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ghaziabad Zone, Ghaziabad is directed to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices. So far as the limitation is concerned, the Division Bench of this court in the case S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad [2009] 26 VST 601 (All) held as follows (at pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|