9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition. Mr. S.P.Kesarwani, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in fire works and registered under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner is challenging the separate orders dated 9th April, 2007 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Varanasi, whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Varanasi, has been authorised to proceed with the reassessment for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99 under the Central Sales Tax Act. 3. What has happened in this matter is that the petitioner had challenged the issuance of an authorisation in this behalf earlier by filing a writ petition to this Court bearing Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment in respect of the assessment years in question. His further submission is that under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, if an order of assessment is set aside and the case is remanded for re-assessment by a competent authority, the order of assessment has to be made within one year from the date of receipt of the order of remand by the Assessing Authority or by 31st December, 1982, whichever is later. The period of one year reckoned from 19.10.2002 having expired on 18th October, 2003, the authorisation issued by the Additional Commissioner permitting the Assessing Authority to make re-assessment is, therefore, barred by limitation. Mr. Kesarwani submits that it is not permissible for the petitioner to raise this plea and relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission. Also, for another reason, nothing prevented the petitioner from getting and producing the certified copy of the order to get the remanded matter decided. For this reason, it is not possible to accept the submission of the petitioner. 7. While recording this on the petition, we must record that we are not at all satisfied with the conduct of Sri V.K.Singh, Additional Commissioner, Varanasi who has presently passed the impugned order dated 9th April, 2007 or of Mr. Ram Sahai, the then Additional Commissioner who was to hear the matter on 19th October, 2002. Firstly, we have read the order passed by Mr. V.K.Singh. He has not mentioned the fact that when the matter was remanded, Mr. Ram Sahai, the then Additional Commissioner has issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
