TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication of the limitation issue on the basis of the date of service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: The question whether the reassessment proceeding was barred by limitation could not be decided without determining when the notice under section 21 was issued and served and when approval under the proviso to section 21(2) was granted. Since the date of service of notice was material to the limitation enquiry, the Tribunal was right in holding that the first appellate authority had erred in treating the notice-service issue as irrelevant and in directing fresh consideration. The revisional court also found no illegality in the Tribunal's view that the earlier rectification under section 22 could not be sustained on the record before it.
Conclusion: The remand direction was upheld and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.
Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, leaving the matter to be decided afresh by the first appellate authority on the issue of limitation and, if necessary, on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for a reassessment proceeding under the Act must be determined with reference to the actual service of notice and the relevant approval process, and where those facts are unresolved, a remand for fresh adjudication is justified.
TaxTMI 
