9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessment was made on March 23, 2007 and exemption was allowed. Further, vide order dated July 10, 2009 an order under section 22 of the Act was passed and the exemption was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the appeals before the first appellate authority on August 11, 2009. The same were dismissed. The petitioner filed second appeals before the Tribunal which were also dismissed on August 26, 2010. Not being satisfied, the petitioner has filed T.T.R.Nos. 288 and 289 of 2010 before this court, whereupon the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. On March 8, 2011, the Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l pool, since the quantum of tax is reimbursed by the petitioner to the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation, thus neither the proceedings under section 22, nor under section 21 of the Act could be initiated. At best, the order could have been revised under section 10B of the Act by the revising authority. He also submits that for the purpose of initiating proceedings under section 21 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to have a "reason to believe" that any part of the turnover has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. According to him, the proceedings under section 21 of the Act could not be initiated for correcting the mistake committed by the assessing authority, if any, during the course of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Additional Commissioner, Grade I passed the impugned order dated May 5, 2011 and rejected the representation made by the petitioner after providing the reasonable opportunity as per the direction of this court. In the impugned order, it was mentioned that the assessee has not given any written or oral submission. It was stated in the impugned order that the petitioner will have no objection if the reassessment proceedings starts under section 21 of the Act. It was also stated that proceedings under section 22 should be replaced under section 21. In view of above and also the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
