Court Upholds Reassessment Order Under U.P. VAT Act; Dismisses Petitioner's Objections as Unsubstantial.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 authorizing reassessment under Section 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The court distinguished the case from Catalysts vs. State of U.P. and aligned with the Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jag Mohan Nath, affirming the legality of the reassessment proceedings. The petitioner's non-appearance and objections were deemed unsubstantial, and the impugned order was affirmed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-appearance of the petitioner.
2. Validity of the impugned order dated 20.08.2020.
3. Application of Section 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.
4. Interpretation of reassessment proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
5. Distinction of the present case from the Catalysts vs. State of U.P. and others judgment.
6. Applicability of Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jag Mohan Nath.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-appearance of the petitioner:
The case was listed multiple times (09.12.2020, 14.12.2020, and 15.12.2020) but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition. This consistent non-appearance led to the case being adjourned repeatedly.

2. Validity of the impugned order dated 20.08.2020:
The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 and sought to restrain the respondent from initiating any assessment/reassessment proceedings based on that order. The impugned order was an authorization granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, read with Section 9(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007.

3. Application of Section 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008:
Section 29(7) allows the Commissioner to authorize assessment or reassessment within eight years after the expiry of the assessment year if he is satisfied that it is just and expedient. The Additional Commissioner granted this authorization due to the significant turnover of U.P. iron and steel, Ex-U.P. iron and steel, and bitumen that escaped assessment.

4. Interpretation of reassessment proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:
The petitioner argued that reassessment proceedings could only take place when there is an assessment order and a reason to believe that there has been a case of no assessment or escaped assessment. They relied on the judgment in Catalysts vs. State of U.P. and others, which held that reassessment proceedings could only occur if there was an existing assessment order.

5. Distinction of the present case from the Catalysts vs. State of U.P. and others judgment:
The court distinguished the present case from the Catalysts judgment. In Catalysts, the assessment order was set aside by the Appellate Authority, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment. During the remand proceedings, reassessment proceedings were initiated, which the court found inappropriate as the entire matter was at large. However, in the present case, the assessment escaped notice, justifying the invocation of Section 29(7).

6. Applicability of Full Bench judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jag Mohan Nath:
The court emphasized that interpreting the Catalysts judgment as the petitioner suggested would conflict with the Full Bench decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jag Mohan Nath. The Full Bench held that assessment proceedings could be made under Section 7(3) and Section 21(1) independently, and it was not necessary to make an assessment first before proceeding under Section 21 for escaped turnover. This principle applies to the present case under Section 29 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008.

Conclusion:
The court found no substance in the writ petition and dismissed it, affirming that the authorization for reassessment under Section 29(7) was valid. The judgment in Catalysts was distinguishable, and the Full Bench decision in Jag Mohan Nath supported the legality of the reassessment proceedings. The petitioner's objections were not upheld, and the impugned order stood affirmed.

---