Doctrine of merger and Article 226 writ relief apply where time-barred appeals do not decide assessment merits.

An appeal dismissed solely as time-barred does not produce merger, because there is no effective appellate adjudication on the merits of the assessment. The doctrine of merger is not universal and depends on the nature and scope of the appellate or revisional order. The text also notes that, where statutory reference proceedings fail to give effective relief in the special facts of the case, the High Court may entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and quash the assessment orders. In such circumstances, the Court may set aside the assessments and permit fresh assessments in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether assessment orders merge in appellate or revisional orders when the appeals are dismissed as time-barred, and (ii) whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained against the assessment orders in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): whether assessment orders merge in appellate or revisional orders when the appeals are dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The appeals against the assessment orders were rejected only on the preliminary ground of limitation and the merits of the assessments were never examined. The doctrine of merger is not of universal application and depends on the nature and scope of the appellate or revisional order. An order rejected as time-barred does not amount to an effective appellate adjudication on the subject-matter of the assessment, and therefore the assessment order does not merge in such an order.

Conclusion: The assessment orders did not merge in the appellate orders.

Issue (ii): whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained against the assessment orders in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Although proceedings under the reference jurisdiction under section 11(6) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had reached a final stage, the reference procedure had failed to yield effective relief because the revising authority did not dispose of the matter in conformity with the answer given on the reference. In the special facts of the case, the Court held that the reference route had misfired and that the petitioner had no other effective remedy to obtain the relief to which he was found entitled. The existence of technical obstacles did not bar interference under Article 226 where justice otherwise required it.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the assessment orders could be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted relief by setting aside the assessment orders and left it open to the Sales Tax Officer to make fresh assessments in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order dismissing an appeal as time-barred does not attract merger, and where statutory reference proceedings fail to afford effective relief in the special facts of the case, the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the assessment orders and permit fresh assessment according to law.

---