TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved and as such, they are being heard and decided together with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Writ Tax No.464 of 2010 relates to Assessment Year 2003-04 (U.P. and Central). Writ Tax No.478 of 2011 relates to Assessment Year 2004-05 (U.P. and Central). Writ Tax No.387 of 2012 relates to Assessment Year 2005-06 (U.P. and Central). Writ Tax No.520 of 2010 relates to Assessment Year 2003-04 (U.P. and Central). Writ Tax No.1537 of 2010 relates to Assessment Year 2005-06 and Assessment Year 2006-07 (U.P.). In the afore-noted first three writ petitions, the petitioner is the manufacturer of zinc oxide. It used zinc ingots, zinc dross and zinc scrap as raw material to manufacture zinc oxide. Its assessment was completed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lead and lead ingot produced from lead scrap has escaped assessment to tax. 5. In both the two sets of petitions, the authorisation under provision of 21(2) of the Act was granted by the Additional Commissioner, and thereafter the Assessing Authority issued notices under Section 21 of the Act. Aggrieved with the said orders of the authorisation and the notices under Section 21 of the Act, the petitioners have filed the present petitions praying to quash the same. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner of the first three writ petitions has used scrap to manufacture zinc oxide, which contained impurities resulting in manufacturing losses and this fact was accepted by the department. Under the circumstances, without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant giving rise to prima facie inference that some part of turnover of the petitioners has escaped assessment to tax, then jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to initiate reassessment proceedings cannot be questioned in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question as to whether the material is sufficient for making assessment or reassessment under Section 21 of the Act would be gone into after the notice is issued to the dealer and he has been heard in the matter. The existence of reason to believe can be challenged, but, not the sufficiency of material for reason to believe. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments in the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Bhagwan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a finding that no adverse material has been found and the petitioners have maintained sufficient account of raw material and finished goods; and their entire purchase and sales are well verifiable. He also mentioned that the petitioner of first three writ petitions had used zinc ingot, zinc dross and zinc scrap as raw material to manufacture zinc oxide. 11. We also find that on the similar set of facts and reasonings as given in the impugned authorisation order, the Assessing Authority sent a proposal to the Additional Commissioner for grant of authorisation under the proviso 21(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2002-03, which was refused by the Additional Commissioner, vide order dated 24th March 2009 (R.A.-1 in Writ Tax No.464 of 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... chemical formula in question, which was replied by the petitioner and after considering the reply, the Assessing Authority himself recorded a finding of fact that the chemical formula in question with regard to proportionate production would be applicable only if the zinc metal (raw material) is 100% pure. Consequently, he accepted the explanation of the assessee- petitioner as well as the disclosed production for the Assessment Year 2008-09, vide assessment order dated 24th June 2015. Copes of these assessment orders, appellate orders, order of the Tribunal and the order refusing to grant authorisation for the Assessment Year 2002-03 have been filed as Annexure-RA-1, which are not disputed by the respondents. 12. Thus, from the facts as ....