TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. A writ was also sought seeking a mandamus or prohibition restraining / prohibiting respondent no. 3 from taking any reassessment proceeding for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 both under U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, in pursuance of the order dated 23.03.2010. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, the Appeals. 4. We heard Sri Sharad Sharma learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Sri H.M. Bhatia, learned Government pleader. 5. All these writ petitions relate to the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Proceedings were taken under Section 21(2) of the Act. Section 21(2) of the Act provides for reassessment, which reads as follows: "21. Assessment of tax on the turnover not assessed during the year.- (1) ... (2) Except as otherwise provided in the section, no order of assessment or reassessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of [two years from the end of such year or March 31, 1998, whichever is later]: Provided that if the [Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re were such undeclared transactions. It is pointed out that be it a proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act, the documents, which were relied, which were essentially the Accounts of another entity, namely, M/s Parmarth Iron (P) Limited and the materials seized in the Excise raid, were not made available, though request was made, and though a request was made for cross examination, that was also not permitted. Upon query by the Court, this is the stand of the learned Senior Counsel that the Director, whose statement was found to be incriminatory, was not a Director of all the Companies, but he was only the Director of M/s Kukreti Steel Limited, which is the appellant in Special Appeal No. 451 of 2015. The learned Senior Counsel would fairly submit that such a stand as such was not taken before the Authorities and, what is more, such stand was also not taken before the learned Single Judge. It is, no doubt, taken in the Appeals that the Director, who made the statement, which exposed the liability of the appellants, was a Director in only one of the Companies. According to the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, this is a case, where there was no material for the Authority to enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court, had admittedly been passed before the writ petition had been filed by the respondent." 10. Further, he also sought to draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has, inter alia, held as follows: "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of the alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent after expiry of the period, but not beyond a period of eight years, even if it involves a change of opinion. 14. Therefore, the question to be decided is, whether the Statutory Authority has reasons, with which he is satisfied that it is just and expedient to authorize reassessment having regard to the fact that the period of limitation has run out. 15. As held by the learned Single Judge, there were materials in this case; there was a raid conducted by the Excise Authorities in the premises of M/s Parmarth Iron (P) Limited. The records tend to show that there were sales effected by the appellants to M/s Parmarth Iron (P) Limited, which has not passed though the Accounts of the appellants. Besides this, there was a statement of the Director. We are not impressed by the attempt made in the Appeals for the first time to extricate the appellants from the statement made by the Director on the score that he is a Director of only one Company, namely, appellant in Special Appeal No. 451 of 2015; no such case was set up before the Authorities and, more importantly, such a case was not even set up before the learned Single Judge, but we say no more having regard to the decision, which....