2007 (9) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter proceeding under section 21 of the Act was initiated after the expiry of two years. After giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the assessing authority passed the assessment order on June 25, 2004 estimating the suppressed sales. Aggrieved by the order passed under section 21 of the Act, the applicant filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur, vide order dated August 2, 2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed under section 21 of the Act and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication. Being aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Saharanpur, the applicant filed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order dated June 22, 2007 and dismissed the appeal. (1)Reported as Continental Cement Factory v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 24 VST 358 (All). Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the direction given by this court. He submitted that the Tribunal has admitted that the sanction was granted by the Additional Commissioner on August 23, 2002, but there is no reference of any notice issued under section 21 of the Act thereafter. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal itself shows that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....though the Tribunal has held that the sanction has been granted by the Additional Commissioner on August 23, 2002, but the Tribunal completely failed to record the finding that whether any notice under section 21 of the Act has been issued after the grant of sanction by the Additional Commissioner on August, 23, 2002. The Tribunal has also not considered the effect of the issuance or non-issuance of the notice after the sanction granted by the Additional Commissioner. In my view the order of the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is not fair on the part of the Tribunal to ignore or avoid to follow the direction given by this court. If the court gives any direction to the Tribunal it should be strictly followed without any....