TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench judgments relied on by the petitioner need to be referred, is not necessary to be considered in fact of the present case where notice was given to the petitioner which was replied and order has been passed recently, i.e., on February 15, 2012. We, however, make it clear that we are not expressing any concluded opinion on the issues raised in the writ petition and the questions are left open. In result, the order dated February 15, 2012 is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to take a fresh decision. - Writ Tax No. 324 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 16-3-2012 - ASHOK BHUSHAN AND PRAKASH KRISHNA, JJ. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned standing counsel. By this writ petition, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner, relying on the judgments of the Division Bench of this court in the cases of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax reported in [2009] 26 VST 601 (All); [2007] 34 NTN 345, Vikrant Tyres Limited v. State of U.P. reported in [2006] 148 STC 122 (All); [2005] UPTC 501, India Grain Merchant v. State of U.P. reported in [2009] 41 NTN 205 and Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Limited v. State of U.P reported in [2007] 5 VST 284 (All); [2006] UPTC 1128, has submitted that in the aforesaid cases the Division Benches have taken the view that reasons are to be recorded while granting permission by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of power under section 21(2), proviso. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned counsel appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting permission for reassessment in pursuance of which notice was issued by the assessing authority on February 25, 2012 and proceedings before the assessing officer have not yet proceeded any further. We are of the view that ends of justice shall be served in directing the Additional Commissioner to consider afresh and take appropriate decision giving reasons. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Division Bench judgments relied on by the petitioner need to be referred, is not necessary to be considered in fact of the present case where notice was given to the petitioner which was replied and order has been passed recently, i.e., on February 15, 2012. We, however, make it clear that we are not expressing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
