9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brief may be noted. The dealer-opposite party is a registered dealer and deals in the sale and purchase of bone products. For the assessment year 1992-93 (Central), the assessment order dated May 24, 1995 was passed under summary scheme. It was found that the turnover of the dealer-opposite party is not liable to tax and is exempted as the bone meal was sold as fertilizer. Subsequent thereto, proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was initiated by the assessing officer as he had received an information that the bone meal was sold to the dealers of ceramic/pottery manufacturers and the declaration given by the dealeropposite party that it was sold as fertilizer is incorrect. A pre-reassessment show-cause notice was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of opinion. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel of the parties and perused the record. When the matter was taken up earlier, this court directed the learned standing counsel to produce the original record. An argument was raised on behalf of the dealer-opposite party that in the original assessment order though framed under the summary scheme, a show-cause notice before passing of the assessment order was issued and its reply was submitted. The assessing authority after applying his mind to the reply framed the assessment order. The fact that speaking assessment order was framed was disputed by the learned standing counsel. To ascertain the correct factual position, the learned standing counsel was directed to produce t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of any new fact, the proceeding for reassessment cannot be initiated on the basis of the material already on record. It is an acknowledged legal position that if the material on record was not considered or has escaped the notice of the assessing officer, it is a good ground to initiate the reassessment proceeding. The reliance placed by it on a Division Bench decision in Parikh and Sons, Kanpur v. Trade Tax Officer [1998] 109 STC 631 (All); [1997] UPTC 261 is misplaced one. A close reading of the judgment would show that the question that title in the goods was transferred by documents during the manufacture of goods from barabanki outside UP was considered in detail in the original assessment order. The said order was sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
