TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were validly initiated on the basis of information regarding unverified sale of mentha oil. (ii) Whether the recognition certificate granted under section 4B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be cancelled retrospectively.
Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were validly initiated on the basis of information regarding unverified sale of mentha oil.
Analysis: Section 21 authorises reassessment where the assessing authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment. The existence of some rational and relevant material is sufficient to found jurisdiction, while adequacy of the material is not justiciable. The information that 342 kg of mentha oil had been sold to M/s. Ajmani Chemicals, Rampur, and was not verifiable from the assessee's account books constituted relevant material having a nexus with the belief of escaped assessment. The proceedings were, therefore, not a mere change of opinion.
Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 21 was valid and the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary was incorrect.
Issue (ii): Whether the recognition certificate granted under section 4B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be cancelled retrospectively.
Analysis: A recognition certificate could not be cancelled with retrospective effect. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that there was no valid basis for cancellation on the merits. The retrospective part of the cancellation order was unsustainable in law.
Conclusion: The retrospective cancellation of the recognition certificate was invalid and the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment challenge failed, but the cancellation of the recognition certificate could not be sustained retrospectively, resulting in a partial success for both sides on their respective revisions.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 21 can be initiated only on relevant material giving rise to a bona fide reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment, and a recognition certificate cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect unless the statute clearly authorises such operation.
TaxTMI 
