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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order accepting an application under the compounding scheme under section 7D of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is in the nature of an agreement and, if so, whether it can be revised under section 10B of the Act in the absence of concealment or misrepresentation.
Analysis: The compounding application had been accepted by the assessing authority and the acceptance operated as an agreement between the assessee and the revenue. Such an order could not be treated as a revisable order under section 10B merely because the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) took a different view on timeliness. Revisional interference was not justified when there was no allegation that any material fact had been concealed or that the assessee had made any misrepresentation. The controversy as to whether the applications were within time in view of the circulars was therefore left untouched.
Conclusion: The order passed under section 7D was not revisable under section 10B in the facts of the case, and the revision succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The compounding orders and the Tribunal's order were set aside, and the assessee's revisions were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: An order accepting compounding under section 7D of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is an agreement and cannot be revised under section 10B unless it is shown that the assessee concealed material facts or made misrepresentation.