Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether permission to reopen the assessment on the ground that Form IIIB had been issued for a transaction falling beyond the prescribed period was valid in law.
Analysis: The challenged order granting permission to initiate reassessment disclosed application of mind. The amended scheme of Rules 12-A, 12-B and 12-C of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 was held to be mandatory, and the prescribed filing procedure for Form IIIB could not be relaxed by reading down the rules. On that basis, a Form IIIB relating to a transaction beyond two years from the assessment year in which it was issued could not be treated as validly filed for the assessee's claim. The earlier decision relied upon by the petitioner was held inapplicable in view of the changed legal position. The Court also reiterated that equity has no place in taxing laws and that a statutory rule is not unreasonable merely because it operates harshly in a particular case.
Conclusion: The permission to reopen the assessment was upheld and the writ petition was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment authorization failed, leaving it open to the Assessing Authority to decide the assessee's remaining contentions on merits in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where tax rules prescribe a mandatory procedure for use of a statutory form, non-compliance with that procedure cannot be cured by equity or by reliance on an earlier contrary view.