9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, has issued the notices under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner filed the reply dated February 23, 2010 to the aforesaid notices, annexure 3 to the writ petition but while passing the impugned orders, the submissions made in the reply have not been considered at all and the approval has been granted only in the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the orders are vitiated, inasmuch as the submissions have not been considered and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside. In support of the contentions reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e granted. Except for the aforesaid order dated July 12, 2001, which has been brought on record by the petitioner, the respondents have not brought any other order passed by respondent No. 2, which may show that any other reasons have been assigned. The order dated 12th July, 2001 does not contain any reason and, therefore, as held by this court in the case of Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Limited v. State of U.P. reported in [2007] 5 VST 284 (All); [2006] UPTC 1128 and S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] 26 VST 601 (All) (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 483 of 2002), decided today, reasons have to be assigned by the Additional Commissioner while granting sanction/approval for initiating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 or sub-section (4) of section 21 would not be attracted in the present case both for passing a fresh order of sanction and reassessment. However, it would not mean that they could be passed at any time at the sweet will of the authorities. They are to be passed within a reasonable period and what would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case."
We follow the aforesaid view expressed by the Division Bench of this court.
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Division Bench of this court, the limitation provided in the Act may not be a bar in passing the fresh orders.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed as stated above. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
