TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a revision application filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was governed by the limitation period in section 10(3-B) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and whether the date on which the assessment order was made had to be treated as the date of service of the order on the Commissioner.
Analysis: Section 10(3-B) required a revision application to be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of. Although the rules provided for service of the assessment order and demand notice on the dealer, there was no express provision for service on the Commissioner. The limitation provision was therefore construed reasonably in the context of the statutory scheme. As the Commissioner was the executive head of the sales tax department and exercised supervisory powers over assessing authorities, the knowledge of the Sales Tax Officer making the assessment was treated as notice to the Commissioner. The statutory structure supported the conclusion that no separate mode of service on the Commissioner was necessary.
Conclusion: The revision application filed by the Commissioner was governed by section 10(3-B), and the date of the assessment order was treated as the date of service on the Commissioner. The revisions were barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a limitation provision requires filing from the date of service of the order, and the statutory scheme does not prescribe separate service on a superior departmental authority, the making of the order by the subordinate assessing authority may be treated as notice to that authority's departmental head for computing limitation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
