TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment/ reassessment proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the respondent no.3. (c) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to produce/ bring on record the exparte assessment order dated 18.3.16, the order sheet maintained by the assessing authority, report furnished by the assessing authority (respondent no.2) before the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Mirzapur, as recorded in the order dated 30.3.19, registers R-5A, 5B;" 4. The impugned order dated 20.08.2020 is an authorisation granted by the Additional Commissioner Grade-I, Commercial Tax, Varanasi Zone - II, Varanasi under Section 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2008') read with Section 9(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2007'). 5. The Additional Commissioner has granted the authorisation on the facts of the present case on the ground that purchases of U.P. iron and steel of Rs. 15,51,47,792/-, purchase of Ex-U.P. iron and steel of Rs. 7,61,61,195.04 and bitumen of Rs. 13,03,70,473/- escaped assessment to entry tax under the Act, 2007 ina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessing authority." 7. Perusal of the afore-quoted provisions shows that if the Assessing Authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or has been under assessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under this Act, or any deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making such inquiry as may be considered necessary, assess or re-assess the dealer to tax according to law. Section 29(3) of the Act, 2008 provides that except as otherwise provided in this section or elsewhere in this Act, no order of assessment or re-assessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of three years from the end of such assessment year. Sub-section (7) of Section 29 provides for extended period of limitation upto eight years. It provides that where the Commissioner, on his own motion or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority, is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....706 of 2010, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs-7, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment, as under: "7. In Writ Petition No.706 of 2010, the learned counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer treated enzymes as a unclassified item and taxed the same at the rate of 10% for the assessment year 2006-07 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. During the pendency of assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer pursuant to the remand order of the appellate authority reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 21 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of original assessment proceedings the question of escaped assessment does not arise and, therefore, question of issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Act was wholly illegal and had been issued without any application of mind and was liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on various decisions, which will referred hereinafter. 25. With regard to Writ Petition No.706 of 2010, we find that the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hable on the facts of the present case. 13. Besides above, if the judgment in the case of Catalysts (supra) is read in the manner as interpreted by the petitioner, it shall be in conflict with the law settled by a Full Bench (5 Judges) of this court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Jag Mohan Nath (1972) 29 STC 663 (All) in which the Full Bench interpreted the pari materia provision of Section 21(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and held as under (Majority view):- "33. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Nagpur MANU/SC/0216/1963 and Anandji Haridas & Co. Private Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare MANU/SC/0298/1967 applies equally to assessments under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and assessment proceedings in cases where no returns are filed by a dealer can be made both under Section 7(3) and Section 21(1). Which of the two sections will apply to a particular case will, however, depend on the circumstances of each case. The non-furnishing of returns by a dealer, and the consequent failure to pay the tax due, vest in the assessing authority the power to make a best judgment assessment both under S....