9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order which the petitioner undertakes to file within two weeks from today. The Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur is directed to consider the submissions made in the reply to the notices. - Writ Tax No. 380 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2010 - RAJES KUMAR AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ. Heard Sri R.R. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated February 25, 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur for the assessment years 2003-04 under the U.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order. The impugned order reveals 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 order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. In the case of Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly [2007] 35 NTN 31, which has been relied on by the subsequent Division Bench of this court in the case of Yadav Traders v. State of U.P. [2010] 29 VST 107 (All); [2009] UPTC 576, it has been held as follows: From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be seen that he has not dealt with any of the grounds given in the reply submitted by the petitioners. He has only g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two weeks from today. The Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur 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 of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad [2009] 26 VST 601 (All) held as follows (at page 638 of VST): Recently a Division Bench of this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 563 of 2007 (King Agency v. State of U.P.) decided on May 11, 2007 had followed the aforesaid decision and had held that where proceeding has been set aside by this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution the period of limitation shall not appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
