https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158923 Section 21(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was challenged as violating Article 14 on the ground that it treated dealers proceeded against on a superior authority's direction differently from dealers assessed under section 21(2), because no limitation period was prescribed for the former. The Court rejected the discrimination argument, relying on the fact that the person proceeded against had been a party to the earlier appellate proceedings and the notice was issued pursuant to that order. It also rejected the limitation objection, holding that the notice under section 21(7) was not barred on that ground. The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned proceedings were sustained. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:02:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158923 Section 21(7) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was challenged as violating Article 14 on the ground that it treated dealers proceeded against on a superior authority's direction differently from dealers assessed under section 21(2), because no limitation period was prescribed for the former. The Court rejected the discrimination argument, relying on the fact that the person proceeded against had been a party to the earlier appellate proceedings and the notice was issued pursuant to that order. It also rejected the limitation objection, holding that the notice under section 21(7) was not barred on that ground. The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned proceedings were sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 16 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158923