TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant of approval, which is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the said notice is also liable to be set aside. W.P. allowed. - 413 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 19-3-2010 - RAJES KUMAR AND RAM AUTAR SINGH , JJ. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, dated March 4, 2010, by which he has granted the approval under the proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) which is applicable to the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had paid the entry tax on the market value in the year under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved as has been saved in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] 26 VST 601 (All). We have perused the impugned order. We are of the view that while granting the approval, the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, has not applied its mind to the reply given by the petitioner. The order is mechanical and therefore, vitiated and is liable to be set aside. We are also of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 10, Kanpur, has issued the notice under section 21 of the Act on March 2, 2010 prior to the date of the grant of approval, which is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the said notice is also liable to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y set aside. So far as the limitation is concerned, the Division Bench of this court in the case S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad [2009] 26 VST 601 (All) held as follows (at page 638 of VST): Recently a Division Bench of this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 563 of 2007 (King Agency v. State of U.P.) decided on May 11, 2007 had followed the aforesaid decision and had held that where proceeding has been set aside by this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution the period of limitation shall not apply while initiating proceeding thereafter. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the period of limitation provided under the first proviso to sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
