TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on the business of liquid glucose and chemicals etc. at 293, Gangapur, Bareilly upto 18.9.1994. The firm has been reconstituted from 18.9.1994. The reconstituted partnership firm consisted of Sri Navin Kumar and Smt. Petrichha Mehrotra as partners. The erstwhile firm had filed its return for the assessment year 1994-95 upto the period 18.9.1994. The respondent no.1 passed an assessment order on 23.9.1997 wherein the books of account and disclosed turnover had been accepted. The reconstituted firm also filed its monthly return as required under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. It had filed the return for the assessment year 1994-95 for the period 18.6.1994 to 31.3.1995. The respondent no.1 had passed the assessment order on 26.2.1998 accepting the books of account and the disclosed turnover. He had imposed tax @ 7.5% on the sale of liquid glucose. According to the petitioner, in the appeal for the assessment year 1993-94, preferred by the petitioner, the Trade tax Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.200 had held the liquid glucose to be taxable as a medicine. The respondent no.1 had sought permissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a chemical nor a drug. The petitioner was given ample opportunity by the respondent no.2 before granting permission and there is no provision under the law or the Rules to communicate the order granting permission to initiate proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act. Even re-assessment proceeding, initiated on change of opinion, is permissible under Section 21(2) of the Act and the decision given by the Apex Court, being binding, has to be followed. Thus, the proceedings are justified. The liquid glucose is taxable @ 10% and not 7.5% as alleged. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the Apex Court had simply dismissed the Special leave Petition without adjudicating the matter on merit. It cannot be taken as laying down the binding law to the effect that the liquid glucose is not a drug. It has simply declined to entertain the Special leave Petition against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Further, the decision of the Tribunal, which is inter partes, relating to earlier assessment, is binding upon the respondents till such time it is not set aside by a competent Court of law. The authorisation has also been given mechanically, without....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that in the original assessment order passed for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, the respondent no.1 has imposed tax @ 7.5% on the sale of liquid glucose effected by the petitioner. In respect of the previous year, i.e., 1993-94, the Tribunal, vide order dated 23.6.2000 had held that the liquid glucose sold by the petitioner is liable to tax @ 7.5% as medicine. The order of the Tribunal appears to have been become final between the parties as no material has been placed before us by either of the parties that the said order was subject matter of challenge before this Court by way of revision under Section 11 of the Act. We also find that against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Cadilla Laboratories (supra), the Special Leave Petition had been dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 7.12.1992. A copy of the order dismissing the Special Leave Petition has not been placed before us. However, the reporting contained in 1993(18) STC 5 (From our reporter at the Supreme Court) has been produced. It only mentions that the Apex Court had di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.483 of 2002), decided today, reasons have to be assigned by the Additional Commissioner while granting sanction/approval for initiating proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act. As no reason has been assigned, the authorisation/sanction dated 12.7.2001 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. As the authorisation itself has been set aside, the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof also cannot be allowed to stand and are set aside. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the other issues raised on behalf of the petitioner. The Additional Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and the direction given by this Court in M/s S.K.Traders (supra) would also apply in the present case. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. ============= Document 1 " सरà¥à¤µà¤¶à¥à¤°à¥€ रामायण टà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤¡à¤°à¥à¤¸, 5 - षाहदाना रोड, बरà....