Reassessment after remand and writ discretion denied where suppression and adjournments defeated relief.

On reassessment after the Tribunal's remand, the six-month limitation under section 21(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act applied to the fresh assessment orders, and time ran from when the assessing authority acquired knowledge of the appellate order; on the facts, the orders were therefore not invalid for limitation. The Court also held that writ relief under article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts, repeatedly seeks adjournments, and fails to cooperate in the reassessment. In view of that conduct, the petitioner was disentitled to interference in writ jurisdiction and the challenge to the reassessment failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fresh assessment orders passed after the Tribunal's remand were barred by limitation under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and in particular whether the six-month period under section 21(5) applied and commenced from the date the order of the Tribunal was brought to the assessing authority's notice. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India despite repeatedly seeking adjournments, concealing material facts, and not cooperating in the reassessment proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the fresh assessment orders passed after the Tribunal's remand were barred by limitation under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and in particular whether the six-month period under section 21(5) applied and commenced from the date the order of the Tribunal was brought to the assessing authority's notice.

Analysis: The reassessment was after the earlier ex parte assessment orders had been set aside under section 30 and the matter had been remanded for fresh assessment. On that footing, the six-month limitation under section 21(5) governed the making of the fresh assessment orders. The Court applied the Full Bench view that limitation begins when the assessing authority acquires knowledge of the appellate order, and in the facts of the case treated January 17, 2005 as the relevant date rather than the later date of formal service. The Court nevertheless noted that the petitioner had obtained repeated adjournments after remand and had delayed the proceedings.

Conclusion: The fresh assessment orders were not invalid on the ground of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India despite repeatedly seeking adjournments, concealing material facts, and not cooperating in the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The writ remedy was held to be discretionary and not a matter of course. The Court found that the petitioner had not disclosed the complete facts, had suppressed the sequence of adjournment applications and the conduct that delayed the reassessment, and had not cooperated after the remand. In view of that conduct, the Court held that the petitioner had disentitled itself to relief in writ jurisdiction and that granting relief would reward the very conduct that caused the delay.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief under article 226.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment orders failed, and the writ jurisdiction was refused because the petitioner's own conduct and lack of full disclosure disentitled it to interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment after remand, the applicable limitation is determined by the statutory provision governing fresh assessment, but relief under article 226 may be refused where the petitioner suppresses material facts and is responsible for the delay complained of.

---