TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed for quashing the order dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, respondent No. 2 under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (in short U.P. Act) and consequential reassessment proceeding initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 (U.P. and Central). 3. Writ Petition No. 613 (Tax) of 2006 has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.3.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, respondent No. 2 under Section 21(2) of U.P. Act, and consequential reassessment proceeding initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 3 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 (U.P.). 4. Initi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions are more or less the same which ultimately goes to the root of similar controversy, therefore, Writ Petition No. 493 of 2006 is being treated as the leading case. The facts enumerated in Writ Petition No. 493 of 2006 are as follows: 8. The petitioner is a commission agent during the Assessment Year 1999-2000 it was engaged in the activity of purchase and sale of paddy on commission on behalf of Ex U.P. Principal. During the said assessment year the petitioner purchased paddy on behalf of Ex U.P. Principal M/s Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar of Delhi and other Ex U.P. Principals. 9. The petitioner at the relevant time laboured under mistake of law that it was liable to be taxed in respect of purchase made on behalf of Ex U.P. Principal on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o show cause as to why permission be not granted to the Assessing Authority to initiate reassessment proceeding against the petitioner for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 (U.P.). The petitioner vide reply dated 28.1.2006, stated that the entire purchases of paddy made during the Assessment Year 1999- 2000 was on commission basis on behalf of Ex U.P. Principal. The respondent No. 2 by order dated 17.2.2006 had granted permission to the Assessing Authority of the Petitioner to reassess the petitioner for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 (U.P. and Central) and consequential notice has also been issued by the Assessing Authority, respondent No. 3 for reassessment proceeding. Hence the present writ petition. 13. The facts of connected writ petitions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y difficult and impracticable for the Additional Commissioner to record his own reasons while granting permission as the Assessing Authority who is 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. 17. We have considered the rival submissions and we find from the record that to the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 the petitioner had filed its detailed obje....