2025 (5) TMI 1813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.M. Rai along with Mr. Praveen Kumar, for the revisionists and Mr. B.K. Pandey and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondent. 2. The issue involved in all the aforesaid revisions are common, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid revisions are decided by the common order treating the Sales / Trade Tax Revision No. 365 of 2017 as leading case. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 365 of 2017 3. The instant revision has been admitted vide order dated 21.8.2017 on questions of law nos. (A), (B) and (C), but today when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the revisionists is pressing only question....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g authority passed the fresh order dated 21.6.2010 which was challenged in the appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 9.9.2014 against which a second appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.5.2017. Hence the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist has raised the issue of jurisdiction for initiating the order passed under Section 10 B of the Act on the basis of subsequent judgment being given. He further submits that the proceedings under Section 10 B of the Act can legally be initiated on the ground of material available on record at the time of passing of the assessment order. The case in hand, admittedly, the proceedings has been initiated only o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he revenue. The propriety and legality of any order can be tested under Section 10 B of the Act but the revisional jurisdiction in confined to the materials on record on the date of passing of such order. In the present case, proceeding under Section 10 B of the Act has only been initiated on the ground of subsequent judgement passed in the case of M/s Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others (supra), which is not permissible under the Act and law laid down by this Court. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s A.K. Corporation and another Vs. State of UP and others, 1994 UPTC 75, relevant para of which, is quoted below:- 15.We have carefully perused the facts and the ratio laid down in the case of Ganga Properties v. Income-tax....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assing of the original assessment order, therefore, the proceedings cannot be justified in the eyes of law. 12. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Commercial Trade Tax UP Lucknow Vs. M/s Assam Bengal Roadway, 2003 NTN (vol 23 ) page 919 and Commissioner Trade Tax UP Vs. S/S Kamal Agencies Saharanpur (2005) 41 STR 658 and M/s Smart Carpet Allahabad Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, 1999 UPTC 1203 13. Further Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others, 2017 UPTC 63 has held that subsequent judgement cannot be used to reopen assessment or to disturb past assessments, which have been concluded. Relevant para of the said judgement is quoted hereunder:- 11.....