TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se to the proceedings under Section 29(7) of the Act after the order of appellate authority which was passed on merit as well as on limitation. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Tax No. 522 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Praveen Kumar,Shubham Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER [ Per: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. ] 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 17th June, 2017 passed by respondent no. 2, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad Zone-II, Ghaziabad [hereinafter referred to as A.C. (C.T.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.I.B.), a show-cause-notice under Section 29(1) of the Act was issued to the petitioner for reopening the assessment for the A.Y. 2011-12. It was said that prima facie no purchases were made from the aforementioned firms and bogus tax invoices were obtained for which no tax was deposited and, therefore, input tax credit was not admissible to the petitioner but it was wrongly claimed and allowed and, therefore, while disallowing the aforesaid amount of input tax credit, therefore, why reassessment should not be done. The A.A., after considering the reply and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, vide order dated 22nd July, 2016 passed an order under Section 29(1) of the Act and disallowed the input tax credit claimed on the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, passed the impugned order, granting permission to the A.A. for reassessment of tax of the petitioner for the A.Y. 2011-12. 9. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State of U.P. 10. From perusal of the order dated 31st December, 2016 passed by the appellate authority in appeal preferred against the order of A.A. issued/passed under Section 29(1) of the Act, it is evident that the appeal was allowed on both counts i.e. on merit and on the point of limitation. However, in the show-cause-notice as well as impugned order, it has been mentioned that the appellate authority did not allow the appeal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
