Disclosure in reassessment proceedings and limitation objections must ordinarily be raised before the assessing authority, not separately in writ jurisdiction
Where the material relied upon for reassessment had already been disclosed in the notice and earlier counter affidavit, the court declined to compel a fresh supply of the same documents, while preserving the assessee's right to inspection or copies of any additional undisclosed material. It also held that limitation need not be decided as a separate preliminary issue and could be examined by the assessing authority at the stage of the final order. The assessee was left to file a reply and raise all available objections in the reassessment proceedings, and the writ petition did not warrant interference.
Issues: (i) whether the assessee was entitled to a direction for supply or inspection of documents relied upon for proceedings under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether the assessing authority could be directed to decide limitation as a separate preliminary issue.
Issue (i): whether the assessee was entitled to a direction for supply or inspection of documents relied upon for proceedings under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: The material on which the proceedings were founded had already been disclosed in the earlier counter affidavit and the notice itself contained the specific allegations and Form-C details. The Court held that the assessee could not demand a fresh direction merely on the basis of a general apprehension, though if the respondents intended to rely on any further document not earlier disclosed, they were required to permit inspection or supply a copy.
Conclusion: The request for a further direction for supply of documents was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the assessing authority could be directed to decide limitation as a separate preliminary issue.
Analysis: The Court held that the question of limitation was to be considered by the assessing authority at the stage of final order and that no separate direction was necessary. The petitioner was expected to file a reply and raise all objections available in law in the reassessment proceedings.
Conclusion: No direction was issued to decide limitation separately.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition did not warrant interference, and the assessee was left to pursue its objections in the reassessment proceedings, with only the safeguard that any additional relied-upon material had to be disclosed or made available for inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant material forming the basis of reassessment proceedings has already been disclosed to the assessee, a writ court will not compel a fresh supply of the same documents or direct a separate preliminary determination of limitation; the assessee must ordinarily pursue its objections before the assessing authority.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
