Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court deems proceedings time-barred under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Delay of 13 years violates reasonable time principle.</h1> <h3>M/s Balsons Paint Industries (India) Versus Commissioner Commercial Tax</h3> M/s Balsons Paint Industries (India) Versus Commissioner Commercial Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the order dated 2.8.2017, passed under Section 4-A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, cancelling the eligibility certificate dated 26.10.2002, is barred by limitation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Context:The applicant-assessee established a new unit under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, to manufacture Industrial Composite Solvent and was granted an eligibility certificate on 26.10.2002, valid from 30.03.2000 to 29.03.2008. A survey conducted on 28.01.2004 by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Trade Tax Department led to findings that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing activities but was merely trading raw materials. Consequently, the Commissioner of Trade Tax canceled the eligibility certificate on 02.08.2017, citing discrepancies in manufacturing claims and consumption of electricity.2. Tribunal's Observations:The Tribunal noted that the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2003-04 were finalized on 20.03.2006 and were remanded for fresh decision, remaining pending for 11 years. It concluded that the assessee's conduct caused the delay and upheld the Commissioner's order, stating no period of limitation was prescribed under Section 4A(3) of the Act.3. Assessee's Arguments:The assessee argued that even though no limitation period was prescribed under Section 4A(3), the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. Citing Supreme Court decisions, it was contended that delayed exercise of power introduces uncertainty in human affairs and must be within a reasonable period from the discovery of fraud. The reasonable time should be akin to the period of limitation for assessment, i.e., two years (normal) and six years (extended). The proceedings initiated on 10.04.2017 were thus time-barred as they were beyond the reasonable period.4. Revenue's Arguments:The revenue argued that in cases involving breach of terms and conditions, no limitation period should apply as the assessee's misconduct is a relevant factor. It was submitted that the Limitation Act does not apply unless specifically incorporated in the provision. The revenue relied on a Division Bench decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in L.S. Synthetics Ltd., which stated that limitation does not apply to acts a court must perform.5. Court's Analysis:The court noted that the fact giving rise to the proceedings came to the knowledge of the revenue on 28.01.2004. The proceedings were initiated on 10.04.2017, 13 years later, without any explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that reasonable time must be read into such proceedings, especially when factual adjudication is required. The delay deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity to defend.6. Reasonable Time and Limitation:The court held that the principle of reasonable time applies to proceedings under Section 4A(3). The period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Act (six years) was relevant. The proceedings should have been initiated within six years from the end of A.Y. 2007-08, i.e., by 31 March 2010. Initiating proceedings in 2017 was beyond the reasonable period.7. Conclusion:The court concluded that the proceedings initiated after the expiry of a reasonable time were barred by limitation. The discretionary power exercised by the Commissioner was legally unsustainable due to the delay. The question of law was answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The revision was allowed, and the order of cancellation of the eligibility certificate was set aside.Final Order:The present revision is allowed. No order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found