TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 1982 (annexure 5) 1973-74 February 19, 1983 (annexure 7) 1974-75 February 19, 1983 (annexure 7) On January 14, 1993 and February 20, 1993, notices for fresh assessment under section 21(4A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Principal Act", for short), were issued to the petitioner in respect of each of the aforesaid assessment years. These notices have been filed cumulatively as annexure 1 to this writ petition. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged these notices and the consequent proceedings. The ground for challenge is that sub-section (4A) of section 21 was inserted by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992) (hereinafter referred to as, "the Amendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (5), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely,- '(5A) If an ex parte order of assessment or reassessment or penalty passed against a sick unit is set aside by the State Government by an order under sub-section (2) of section 38, a fresh order of assessment, or reassessment or penalty, as the case may be, for that year may be made within one year from the date of receipt of such order of the State Government by the assessing authority concerned.' (d) In sub-section (6A) after the words 'any other assessment or reassessment' the words 'or any other matter' shall be inserted and be deemed to have been inserted on February 19, 1991." It will be noticed that section 14(d) of the Amending Act makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made to cover those cases where limitation for assessment has expired and in which the assessment order gets quashed after the amendment on account of want of jurisdiction. From the petitioner's side, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Sharma v. Income-tax Officer [2002] 254 ITR 772; [2002] UPTC 488 and the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 289 ITR 83. In both these decisions, the Supreme Court has held that retrospectivity to an amending provision is not to be given unless expressly stated or clearly implied. It is quite obvious from a plain reading of the Amending Act that the insertion of sub-section (4A) in section 21 of the Principal Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, we have not been shown any decision where an amendment in procedure has been utilised to reopen concluded proceedings for re-deciding these proceedings according to the amended procedure. Any amendment which has the effect of taking away a vested right or of re-opening closed or concluded proceedings has never been given retrospectivity by any judicial interpretation. Expiry of limitation as also conclusion of legal proceedings confers a valuable and vested right upon the litigant and such vested right cannot be taken away by an amendment of law unless the law has been given retrospective effect expressly by the Legislature or where such retrospectivity appears to be a necessary implication because of the nature of the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may review the proceeding and make such order, varying or revising the order previously made, as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act. (3) The assessing, appellate or revising authority, as the case may be, may, within a period of one year from the commencement of this section or within the period specified in section 22 of the principal Act, whichever expires later, make any rectification in any order passed by it where such rectification becomes necessary in consequence of the amendment of the principal Act: Provided that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty or other dues, shall be made unless the authority concerned has given notice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|