TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether sanction for reopening assessment under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained when the approving authority recorded no reasons and did not deal with the dealer's objections; (ii) whether dismissal of a special leave petition against a High Court decision could be treated as a decision on merits so as to justify reopening.
Issue (i): Whether sanction for reopening assessment under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained when the approving authority recorded no reasons and did not deal with the dealer's objections.
Analysis: The approving authority's order contained only a conclusion and did not answer the objections raised in the reply. No finding was recorded and no reason was assigned for granting approval to initiate reassessment. In the absence of reasons, the order was held to be mechanical and unsustainable. The Court treated a reasoned order as necessary before reopening proceedings under Section 21(2).
Conclusion: The sanction under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was invalid and was set aside, and the proceedings founded on it could not survive.
Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of a special leave petition against a High Court decision could be treated as a decision on merits so as to justify reopening.
Analysis: The Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order does not amount to a declaration on the merits of the controversy, does not create res judicata, and does not result in merger of the impugned decision. On that basis, the dismissal of the special leave petition could not be relied upon as a binding determination that liquid glucose was not a drug.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the special leave petition did not amount to a merits decision and could not justify reopening on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment notices issued in pursuance of the invalid sanction could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Reopening proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 require a reasoned approval order, and dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order does not amount to a merits determination or confer binding precedent on the underlying issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
