Retrospective tax limitation amendment governs pending reassessment, while rectification fails after merger and lapse of time.
A retrospective amendment to the U.P. Sales Tax limitation provision was held to govern pending reassessment proceedings, so expiry of the earlier limitation period did not defeat the reassessment. The later binding Supreme Court interpretation was treated as controlling and displaced the contrary time-bar argument. On rectification, section 22 could not be used to reopen the Tribunal's order once the issue had merged in the High Court judgment and the proceeding had otherwise lost utility with lapse of time. Rectification was therefore not maintainable in the circumstances and had become infructuous.
Issues: (i) Whether the amended limitation period introduced by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 applied to reassessment proceedings after remand, notwithstanding expiry of the earlier limitation period. (ii) Whether the Tribunal's order could be rectified under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 in view of the subsequent binding decision of the Supreme Court and the doctrine of merger.
Issue (i): Whether the amended limitation period introduced by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1983 applied to reassessment proceedings after remand, notwithstanding expiry of the earlier limitation period.
Analysis: The amended provision substituted the earlier cut-off date and was given full retrospective effect. The later Supreme Court ruling on the same statutory scheme held that the extended limitation under the amending law operated according to its terms and was not defeated merely because the earlier period had already expired before the amendment came into force. That binding declaration of law governed the controversy.
Conclusion: The amended limitation provision applied, and the contrary view that the reassessment had become time-barred could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's order could be rectified under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 in view of the subsequent binding decision of the Supreme Court and the doctrine of merger.
Analysis: The earlier High Court decision in the connected matter had affirmed the Tribunal on the same limitation issue, but that foundation disappeared after the later Supreme Court pronouncement. The order under challenge had merged in the High Court judgment on the same question, and the matter could not be reopened by rectifying the Tribunal's order alone. In any event, the rectification proceeding had become barred by lapse of time and had no surviving utility.
Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable in the circumstances and had become infructuous.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the Tribunal's rejection of rectification did not warrant interference, and the challenged proceeding could not revive relief against an order already concluded in the connected matter.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent binding declaration of law giving retrospective effect to an amending tax provision governs pending or surviving proceedings, and rectification under the relevant provision can be invoked only where the error remains legally open and the order has not already merged or become finally closed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
