https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162344 A rectification application filed within three years under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had to be treated under that provision alone, and not as a review application under section 17(2) or a suo motu rectification under section 17(3); rejection as time-barred was therefore erroneous. The levy under section 3-AAAA was also legally sustainable because the goods were purchased from unregistered dealers, not resold in the same form and condition, and the provision had been retrospectively restored by validating amendment after the earlier invalidation was overruled. The rectification order and restored tax levy were accordingly upheld. en-us Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:43:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162344 A rectification application filed within three years under section 22 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act had to be treated under that provision alone, and not as a review application under section 17(2) or a suo motu rectification under section 17(3); rejection as time-barred was therefore erroneous. The levy under section 3-AAAA was also legally sustainable because the goods were purchased from unregistered dealers, not resold in the same form and condition, and the provision had been retrospectively restored by validating amendment after the earlier invalidation was overruled. The rectification order and restored tax levy were accordingly upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162344