2010 (3) TMI 1029

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paid the entry tax on the market value in the year under consideration, which had been accepted by the assessing authority vide order dated March 30, 2006 and, therefore, no proceeding under section 21 of the Act can be initiated on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay entry tax on the value after adding the freight. He submitted that the petitioner had filed detailed reply to the notice under section 21(2) of the Act but without application of mind and giving any reason the impugned order dated March 4, 2010 has been passed. He further submitted that the assessing authority has illegally issued the notice dated March 2, 2010 even before the grant of approval by the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....without jurisdiction and, therefore, the said notice is also liable to be set aside. In the case of Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly [2007] 35 NTN 31 which has been relied on by the subsequent Division Bench of this court in the case of Yadav Traders v. State of U.P. reported in [2010] 29 VST 107; [2009] UPTC 576, held as follows: "From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be seen that he has not dealt with any of the grounds given in the reply submitted by the petitioners. He has only given his conclusion. No finding has been recorded nor any reason has been assigned as to why the approval/ sanction should be granted. Except for the aforesaid order dated July 12, 2001, which has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opinion that the period of limitation provided under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 or sub-section (4) of section 21 would not be attracted in the present case both for passing a fresh order of sanction and reassessment. However, it would not mean that they could be passed at any time at the sweet will of the authorities. They are to be passed within a reasonable period and what would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts of each case." We follow the aforesaid view expressed by the Division Bench of this court. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Division Bench of this court, the limitation provided in the Act may not be a bar in passing the fresh orders. In the result, the writ petition....