1995 (9) TMI 362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovided that assessment for the assessment year 1984-85 be reopened and reassessment be made, thus exercising the powers vested under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Saharanpur. The order of assessment dated March 31, 1993, contained in annexure 5 to the writ petition, passed on the reassessment proceedings has also been challenged. The contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter pertains to the assessment year 1984-85 and the period of limitation as then existed for the purpose of reopening of assessment had come to an end on expiry of four years that is to say in the year 1989. The proviso to s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f limitation. The position is thus clear that in those cases where the limitation of four years, as then existed, had expired before coming into force the amendment by Act No. 28 of 1991, reopening of the assessment is without jurisdiction. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act initiating an enquiry for assessment which is clearly so provided under section 10-A of the Trade Tax Act, and for that reason no appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated March 18, 1993, contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition, which has also been impugned in the present writ petition. On behalf of the State the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing annexure 4, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. In this regard the petitioner has raised the legal plea in paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition which are quoted below: "16. That a Division Bench of this honourable Court in the case of Hargu Charan Srivastava v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1979] 119 ITR 622; 1979 UPTC 852 has held in para 9 that any amendment in regard to the period of limitation was/is retrospective in the sense that it is applicable to all those matters which are pending and which has not become closed or dead and where in a particular proceeding period of limitation was still running the amended provision enlarging the period of limitation would apply. 17.. That, however, section 20 of U.P. Act No. 28 ....