9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as ex parte reassessment order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of civil construction work and opted for compounding under Section 6 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the VAT Act"). By the order dated 22.03.2013, the respondent no. 3 had accepted the petitioner's compounding application. In the said compounding order, it was specifically mentioned that the assessment order under the Entry Tax Act will be passed separately, in accordance with law. Under Section 9(4) of Entry Tax Act, an assessment order dated 22.03.2013 was passed making a best judgement assessment by enhancing the purchase of cement to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no fresh material which came to the knowledge of the respondents after passing of the assessment order, which warrants for initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was further argued that the respondent no. 3, while framing the original assessment order dated 22.07.2017, made a best judgement assessment by enhancing the purchase of cement and consequently, enhanced the levy of entry tax on the same, which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority vide order dated 14.08.2013. The proceeding of reassessment is only a change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law as well as by various judgements rendered by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Rebutting the argument, the counsel for the State relied upon the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Authority must have some material, on which it forms its opinion and the same should not be arbitrary, irrational, vague or irrelevant. In the absence of such material, the action taken by the respondents cannot be sustained. The case in hand, the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order have been passed only on presumption and conjectures, which is not permissible under the law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others (2015) 17 SCC 324 has held that mere change of opinion while perusing the same material cannot be a "reason to believe" that a case of escaped assessment exists requiring assessment proceedings to be reopened. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
