Limitation on remand proceedings cannot defeat reassessment when the authority acts to implement an earlier judicial direction.

A remanded reassessment proceeding under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not defeated by an ordinary limitation objection where the authority was acting to give effect to the earlier judicial direction. The Court held that the challenge based on the limitation period for reassessment and the time limit for implementing remand could not succeed, particularly since the petitioner had not produced the certified copy in time and had not taken timely steps to have the remanded matter decided earlier. The limitation objection was rejected and the reassessment authorisation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment authorisation issued after remand was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The petitioner's challenge was founded on the limitation period prescribed for reassessment under Section 21(2) and on the time limit for giving effect to a remand under Section 21(4). The Court held that once the matter had been remanded in earlier proceedings and the petitioner had been directed to appear before the authority, the remanded proceedings could not be defeated by invoking limitation. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not produced the certified copy in time and that nothing prevented the petitioner from taking steps to have the remanded matter decided earlier.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the reassessment authorisation was upheld, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the impugned reassessment proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A remanded proceeding, where the authority is acting to give effect to a judicial direction, is not defeated by the ordinary limitation plea when the party itself has not taken the necessary steps to complete the remand process.

---