1993 (2) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from payment of sales - tax. It appears that on 20 - 6 - 1991 an order was passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P.. Lucknow, by which permission was granted for initiation proceedings under Section 21 of the Act for the assessment year 1985 - 86 against the petitioners. Section 21 (2) of the Act which is relevant reads as under : - "21. (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section no order of assessment or re - assessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of four years from the end of such year." 3. Section 21 of the Act was amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991, i. e. U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991 which was published in the Gazette an 19 - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....closed at that time. Since in this case the period of limitation came to an end on 31 - 3 - 1990 could the period stand extended by subsequent amendment. It has been urged that it could not be and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is manifestly without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 7. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision reported in 1979 U. P. Tax Cases 852, Hargu Charon Srivastava v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow. It has been held in paragraph 9 of the judgment as under : - "9. The prescription of period of limitation is a matter of procedure. Any amendment in this regard is retrospective in the sense it is applicable to all those matters which are pending ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of sales tax. The question now to be considered is whether in such a case which had been finally closed the amendment made to sub - section (2) of Section 21 which came in force on 19 - 2 - 1991 gives jurisdiction to the Commissioner to order re - assessment. The question can be also posed like this that whether vested right of the petitioner could be divested by means of amending Act, i. c. U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 which came in force on 19 - 2 - 1991. 10. In our opinion its answer lies in what has been held in para 9 of the Division Bench decision of Hargu Charan Srivastava v. C. I. T. (Supra) which holds that amendment in regard to the period of limitation is retrospective in the sense that it is applicable only to those matters which a....