2009 (5) TMI 875

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anpur against the petitioner for the assessment year 1997-98 (U.P.) vide notice dated March 29, 2004, filed as annexure No. 8 to the writ petition and for other consequential reliefs. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: According to the petitioner it is a registered society certified as Khadi and Village Industry by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board under the provisions of the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960. A certificate has been issued to the petitioner on January 10, 1995 by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board certifying the petitioner to be engaged in the business of manufacture of ayurvedic medicines. It is a registered dealer under the provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner, respondent No. 2, vide order of date granted permission to the assessing authority for initiating reassessment proceedings. Pursuant to the permission granted by the respondent No. 2, the assessing authority issued a notice dated March 29, 2004 calling upon the petitioner to submit as to why the reassessment be not made. The matter was fixed for March 31, 2004 which was adjourned on the request of the petitioner. The notice dated March 29, 2004 as also the permission granted by respondent No. 2 vide order dated March 29, 2004 is under challenge in the present writ petition. We have heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... normally in the rank of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, are officers subordinate to the Additional Commissioner and any reasoning given by the Additional Commissioner would create difficulty in the reassessment proceeding as it would be binding on the assessing authority. He, therefore, submitted that the Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in not recording reasons for granting permission/sanction. We have considered the rival submissions. We find from the record that to the show-cause notice dated March 27, 2004 the petitioner had filed a detailed objections/reply on March 29, 2004 but the Additional Commissioner had not given any reasons, whatsoever, nor has dealt with any of the objections raised by the pe....