TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, 2009 the respondent no.1 was satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and refused to grant permission to reopen the matter under Section 21(2) of the Act even though vide order dated 16th April, 2010 ex parte he has granted permission to reopen the matter under Section 21(2) of the Act without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its reply. Since the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act for assessment of entry tax on the Kerosene Oil. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the distribution of Kerosene Oil. It is a registered dealer under the Act. It purchases Kerosene Oil from M/s. Bharat Petroleum Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner's firm is carrying only business of Kerosene Oil meant for supply through Public Distribution System. Thereafter the respondent no.1 vide order dated 10th August, 2009 refused to grant permission under Section 21(2) of the Act. However, the respondent no.1 issued a notice dated 26th March, 2010 calling on the petitioner to show cause as to why the permission under Section 21(2) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 6th August, 2009 refused to grant permission under Section 21(2) of the Act but by ex parte order dated 16th April, 2010 granted permission to reopen the matter under Section 21(2) of the Act ignoring the documents filed earlier by the petitioner. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the respondents, submitted all this matter can be gone into by the respondent no.2 in the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply it is against the principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter as once the respondent no.1 has refused to grant permission to reopen the matter under Section 21(2) of the Act and further amended his order and passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 16th April, 2010 cannot be sustained. The respondent no.1 is directed to afford opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
