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 the approval granted for reopening assessment beyond the normal period under the proviso to Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was vitiated for want of recorded reasons or service of the order, and whether the reassessment proceedings and the writ challenge were barred by delay and laches.
Analysis: The notice initiating the proceeding disclosed the material basis for formation of belief regarding escaped turnover, and the assessee had participated in the proceedings after service of notice. The Court held that the proviso to Section 21(2) does not require a detailed reasoned order if the approving authority has applied its mind to the recorded reasons and the basis of satisfaction is otherwise available on the record and known to the assessee. It further held that the order extending limitation was not challenged with promptitude, the assessee had submitted to the reassessment process, and the challenge after substantial delay was not bona fide. The attack on the appellate remand order was also not entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The approval under Section 21(2) was upheld, the reassessment action was sustained, and the writ petition was rejected.