TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (2) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter referred to as the "Act"), under a Notification dated 1st June, 1963. The assessing authority accepted the said claim of the assessee. Subsequently, however, proceedings under section 21 of the Act were initiated against the assessee on the ground that under the said notification exemption was allowed only on sales and not on purchases. Since the assessee was liable to pay tax on purchases as well as sales, assessments were framed against the assessee for the said years on the basis of its liability on purchases only. The same had been unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before both the appellate authorities below. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the assessee is that on the facts of this case no proceedings und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon the decisions in the cases of Madhuri Das Narain Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1988 STJ 19, Prakash Paper House v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1987 UPTC 664, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. J.J. Enterprises 1981 ATJ 334, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dwarica Das Varun Kumar 1979 UPTC 1152 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madhu Chemical Works [1988] 71 STC 421 (All.); 1988 UPTC 230. In the case of Madhuri Das Narain Das 1988 STJ 19, it was found that at the time of passing of the assessment order under rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, the Sales Tax Officer has applied his mind to the question of applicability of rate to the disputed sale. Therefore, it was held that it was a case of change of opinion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the original assessment. In case no opinion at all had been formed by application of mind, there arises no question of applying the principle of change of opinion in such a situation. Since all the original assessment orders for each of the four years in dispute were passed on 25th September, 1978, and were similarly worded, the learned Standing Counsel relies on the relevant portion from one of the assessment orders. The same is as follows: "Gat warsh 1973-74 mein uprokt sahkari samiti (registered) ki khadi village industries kamisan bambai dwara manyata prapta hone ke karan vigyapti san. S.T. 2783/X-902(60)/59 dinank 1.6.63 ke antargat kar mukt kiya gaya hai. Atah alochya warshon ketu bhi uprokt adhar par vyapari ki kar mukt k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21 of the Act can be taken as a result of second thought or change of opinion. But if it was not so, then it would be a case of non-application of mind and certainly the action would be justified. On the facts of that case, it was held that in regard to the levy of tax at a lesser rate proceedings under section 21 of the Act were justified. The same principle has later on been relied on by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madhu Chemical Works [1988] 71 STC 421; 1988 UPTC 230 as already stated above. The other decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel is the case of Madras High Court in Bharat Refineries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 134. It has been held in that case that the assessing....