9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order was passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P.. Lucknow, by which permission was granted for initiation proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for the assessment year 1985 - 86 against the petitioners. Section 21 (2) of the Act which is relevant reads as under : - 21. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section no order of assessment or re - assessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of four years from the end of such year. 3. Section 21 of the Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991, i. e. U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 which was published in the Gazette an 19 - 2 - 1991. Proviso to sub - section (2) of Section 21 as added by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to an end on 31 - 3 - 1990 could the period stand extended by subsequent amendment. It has been urged that it could not be and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is manifestly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1979 U. P. Tax Cases 852, Hargu Charon Srivastava v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. It has been held in paragraph 9 of the judgment as under : - 9. The prescription of period of limitation is a matter of procedure. Any amendment in this regard is retrospective in the sense it is applicable to all those matters which are pending and which had not become closed or dead. If in a particular proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se which had been finally closed the amendment made to sub - section (2) of Section 21 which came in force on 19 - 2 - 1991 gives jurisdiction to the Commissioner to order re - assessment. The question can be also posed like this that whether vested right of the petitioner could be divested by means of amending Act, i. c. U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 which came in force on 19 - 2 - 1991. 10. In our opinion its answer lies in what has been held in para 9 of the Division Bench decision of Hargu Charan Srivastava v. C. I. T. (Supra) which holds that amendment in regard to the period of limitation is retrospective in the sense that it is applicable only to those matters which are pending and which have not become closed or dead. The view taken i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be divested by an amendment made subsequently. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order of Commissioner dated 2C - 12 - 1991 passed under the Proviso of sub - section (2) of Section 21 added by U. P. Act 28 of 1991 which came in force on 19 - 2 - 1991 is apparently without jurisdiction. Thus the writ petition is liable to succeed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 12. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Commissioner dated 20 - 6 - 1991 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition as also consequential proceedings. Let a certiorari be issued accordingly. Under the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
