High Court Upholds Tax Assessment, Rejects Limitation Challenge

The High Court declined to interfere in assessment proceedings challenged on the grounds of limitation under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that issues of limitation should be raised before the Assessing Authority, not in writ proceedings. The petitioner's contention that the re-assessment period should start from the date of the remand order was disputed by the respondents, who argued that the notice issued in 1986 was timely based on the receipt of the remand order. The Court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the case's merits, allowing the petitioner to raise objections during the assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to assessment proceedings based on limitation under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Dispute regarding the calculation of the period for re-assessment from the date of receipt of remand order.
3. Disagreement on the factual aspects of the case between the petitioner and the respondents.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in assessment proceedings based on limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against the Sales Tax Officer to halt assessment proceedings for the year 1973-74 due to a notice issued in 1986 following a remand order from the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the assessment proceedings were time-barred under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which allows one year for re-assessment after a case is remanded. The petitioner contended that the period should start from the date the Assessing Authority received the remand order, claiming the authority had knowledge of the order before a notice was issued in 1982. However, the respondents disputed this, stating the certified copy of the remand order was received in 1986, making the notice timely. The High Court noted factual disputes and the Supreme Court's stance that issues of limitation should be raised before the Assessing Authority, not in writ proceedings. The Court declined to intervene, emphasizing the petitioner's right to raise objections during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority. The writ petition was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case, and a stay order was discharged.

---