9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Bhagwan Industries(P) Ltd. (1972 (10) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) held the proceedings to be valid. - No illegality in the impugned notices/authorisation under Section 21 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2004-05 (U.P. and Central) and 2005-06 (U.P. and Central). So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the goods are exempt, suffice is to say that this question along with all other points that may be raised by the petitioner shall be considered by the Assessing Authority in the reassessment proceedings while passing reassessment order. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Tax No. - 148 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out application of mind. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-department submits that the information received by the department clearly indicates that turnover of the petitioner has escaped assessment and as such in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s. Bhagwan Industries(P) Ltd., Lucknow (1973)3 SCC 265, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as there was rational basis for the Assessing Authority to form the belief that the whole or any part of the turnover of the petitioner has escaped assessment. He submits that the grounds for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 21 of the Act are relevant and have a nexus with the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 1.10.2009 to the petitioners relying upon voluminous documents/evidences. Information was also received by the respondents about the materials. Consequently, the Assessing Authority sent a proposal to the higher authority under the proviso to Section 21(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06 (U.P. and Central). Thereupon the respondent no.3 issued notices dated 24.12.2009 to the petitioner under Section 21(2) of the Act. The orders dated 2.2.2010 were passed by the respondent no.3 granting authorisation under the proviso of Section 21(2) of the Act. 9. Thereafter, the assessing authority issued notices under Section 21 of the Act including show cause notice giving details on which petitioner was required to submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No.874 of 2010, M/s. Parmarth Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (supra), considered the validity of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhagwan Industries(P) Ltd. (supra) held the proceedings to be valid. 14. In the case of M/s. Bhagwan Industries(P) Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: The controversy between the parties has centered on the point as to whether the assessing authority in the present case had reason to believe that any part of the turnover of the respondent had escaped assessment to tax for the assessment year 1957-58. Question in the circumstances arises as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
