TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed the applications filed under section 30 of the Act and set aside the ex parte assessment orders on the finding that the petitioner could not appear in the assessment proceedings as well at the time of hearing of the applications for setting aside ex parte assessment orders on the ground of his illness. The matter was restored back to the assessing authority with direction to reframe the assessment orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner, armed with the order of the Tribunal, approached the assessing authority with an application dated January 11, 2005 and submitted that in view of the fact that the assessment orders have been set aside by the Tribunal, the recovery citation issued earlier on the basis of ex parte orders may be withdrawn. The assessing authority issued order, withdrawing the recovery proceedings. Thereafter, the proceeding for framing fresh assessment order was initiated by issuing notice dated June 2, 2005, fixing June 25, 2005 for appearance of the petitioner. The said notice was served on June 23, 2005. On the date so fixed, an adjournment application was moved on June 25, 2005 on the ground that the petitioner wants to ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ournment on the plea that he is taking steps to get the case transferred but could not produce any evidence to show that any such transfer application was filed by the petitioner. On the said date, an application (annexure CA6) was filed stating that he has already applied for transfer of the case to the Commissioner, Trade Tax for transferring his case and requested that the assessing authority should extend full cooperation in transferring the cases. The assessing authority thus stayed his hands awaiting the disposal of the transfer application moved by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Since no order regarding transfer of the case was produced by the petitioner, again a show-cause notice dated August 26, 2005, fixing August 31, 2005, was issued requiring the petitioner to submit reply to the showcause notice issued earlier. On the said date, i.e., on August 31, 2005, neither the petitioner nor any person on his behalf appeared in pursuance of the notice dated August 26, 2005. Respondent No. 1 received a communication letter dated August 25, 2005 informing that the transfer application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in saying that period of six months will begin to run from March 7, 2005, when copy of the order of Tribunal was served on him. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act will be applicable and not its sub-section (5). In other words, he submits that the assessment orders are passed within period of limitation of one year, as provided under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act. Secondly, the period of limitation would start running from March 7, 2005 when a copy of the order of the Tribunal was served on the assessing authority and not earlier to it. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As noticed hereinabove, the ex parte assessment orders were passed against the petitioner for the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 200203. The applications for setting aside the ex pare assessment orders, as provided under section 30 of the Act, were filed in respect of all the three assessment years and all of them were rejected by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority as well. The matter was carried in second appeals before the Tribunal. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1961 SC 1500. In the present case admittedly the appellate order dated December 13, 1993 was served on the assessing authority on January 11, 1994, and hence the said authority certainly knew about the appellate order on January 11, 1994. Hence in this case the limitation period for making the assessment had clearly expired." From the above quotation, it would appear that if the parties or counsels were present before the appellate authority when he passed his order then the limitation will run from the date of the order, but if they came to know about the order only subsequently it will run from the date of service of the order or knowledge of the order whichever is earlier. It may be noted that the relevant provisions from the Trade Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder were not brought to the notice of the Full Bench. Rule 68(7) of the Rules framed under the Act provides that copy of every order under section 9 or section 10 shall be delivered to or on, the parties concerned free of charge. Rule 77 provides "modes of service" of any notice, summons or order under the Act or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on but to adjourn the case as per wishes of the petitioner. It is admitted fact that the notice was served on the petitioner and he did not file any reply and took somersault that he is seeking transfer of the case by filing transfer application before the Commissioner, Trade Tax. Hearing of the case was adjourned on the request of the petitioner from time to time, to accommodate him. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. See N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [1998] 6 JT 242 SC. The very idea of providing period of limitation of six months is to prevent official delay. The said provision has been enacted for the benefit of a dealer. If a dealer, like the petitioner, seeks adjournment, one after another, on the ground that he has no faith in the assessing authority, the assessing authority is left with no option, but to adjourn the case. In such circumstance, an official authority has practically no option except to await the result of the transfer application otherwise he is likely to be condemned. In this fact situation, it may be de....