9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 got ample opportunity to defend his case before the first appellate authority. Appeal dismissed. - Misc. Bench Nos. 4997, Misc. Bench Nos. 5006 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2011 - DEVI PRASAD SINGH AND SATHISH CHANDRA (DR.) JJ. Pradeep Agarwal for the petitioner C.S.C. for the respondents JUDGMENT By both the writ petitions, the petitioner has assailed the approval orders dated March 18, 2011 and May 5, 2011 whereby the competent authority has allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril 15, 2011, the petitioner filed representation before opposite party No. 2 as per direction given by this court on May 5, 2011. The said representation was rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has again filed the present writ petitions. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the approval under section 21(2) of the Act was wrongly granted by opposite party No. 2 as there was no reason to believe for the tax evasion. He further submits that form 3C(1) was issued by the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation to the petitioner to establish that the issuing dealer accept the liability of tax on the purchase or sale of goods under rule 12B of the Act. According to him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional Standing Counsel, justified the order passed by the authorities on March 1, 2011 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated May 5, 2011 was rejected by the authority. He further submits that in the instant case, no proceeding can be initiated under section 10B of the Act for the reasons as the period of four years has already expired. So, the authorities concerned have rightly initiated the proceedings under section 21 of the Trade Tax Act. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases: 1. Kalpana Kala Kendra v. Sales Tax Officer, Circle 20, Kanpur [1989] 75 STC 198 (All); [1989] UPTC 597 (All). 2. Shyam Babu Vaishya Co. v. Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax [2005] 139 STC 397 (All); [2004] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
