TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. and others, (2012) 48 NTN 1 has upheld the constitutional validity of the said legislation. Suffice it to say that the present petitioner had also filed a writ petition no.154 of 2007 which was dismissed on 23rd of December, 2011. Thereafter, an application to recall the said order and to restore the writ petition was filed which was dismissed on 6th of April, 2012. It may also be placed on record that admittedly, the petitioner had obtained a stay order in the aforesaid writ petition no.154 of 2007. After the dismissal of the restoration application, notice for assessment was given. In reply thereof, besides the other things, the petitioner raised a point of limitation on the ground that the assessment proceedings are barred in view of section 21(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The petitioner did file another writ petition no.443 of 2013 before this Court seeking a direction directing the Assessing Officer to decide the question of limitation first. But it could not get the desired relief and the petition was disposed of with the observations that all the questions shall be decided simultaneously while framing the assessment order. Now, the impugned assessment order has been pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the writ petition no.154 of 2007 was received by the Assessing Authority. The assessment order is completely silent on this point. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assessing Authority had knowledge of the dismissal of the writ petition, an inference should be drawn from its various overt acts, such as encashment of the bank guarantee which was furnished in pursuance of the interim order etc.. Reference was also made to some other documents to buttress the above argument. However, in reply, the attention of the Court was drawn towards the paragraph-54 of the writ petition and it was contended that a departmental circular was issued informing the authorities that a large number of writ petitions challenging the validity of entry tax have been dismissed, directing them to invoke the bank guarantees. In other words, the learned standing counsel submitted that the mere fact that the bank guarantee was encashed by the Assessing Authority is not an indicative of the fact as to when the judgment of the writ court was served on him. For the sake of convenience, section 21(6) is reproduced below:- 21(6) "Where the proceedings for assessment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing any reason. In that connection, it was observed that the question of limitation being jurisdictional question, the writ petition was maintainable. Paragraphs-23 and 24 relied by the petitioner are reproduced below:- "23. Question of limitation being a jurisdictional question, the writ petition was maintainable. 24. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the writ court would not entertain the writ application questioning validity of a notice only, particularly, when the writ petitioner would have an effective remedy under the Act itself. This case, however, poses a different question. The Revisional Authority, being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment." Then, reliance was placed on ITW Signode India Ltd. Versus Collector of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Article 226 of the Constitution should be entertained in a matter involving challenge to the order of the assessment passed by the competent authority under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and corresponding law enacted by the State Legislature and answered the same in negative by making the following observations: "Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the Prescribed Authority under subsection (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under subsection (3) of Section 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is creat....