TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 541
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2157 of 2005 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions.. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2157 of 2005 The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2005 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut in Appeal No. 148/2003 for the Assessment Year 1996-97 (UP). The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 on question of law nos. (VII), (X) & (XI), but the learned Senior Counsel only presses question of law no. (XI), which reads as under:- "XI) Whether the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin the period prescribed under the Act, the order was passed and served on the applicant on 29.11.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2003. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2003, the applicant preferred second appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to considered the reply and various documents filed by applicant in its reply. He further submits that for the assessment year in question, no sales were disclosed in the State of U.P. and all the sales were made to export and therefore, no tax liability was claimed by the applicant either under the U.P.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 12.11.2002 was given to the process server on 13.11.2002 or not. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that when the specific order was passed on 24.03.2022, the record could not be produced on the date fixed, i.e., 21.04.2022, and the matter was adjourned calling for an affidavit by the Officer concerned, which was filed filed on 22.04.2022 stating that the original record are not available. He further submits that in absence of original record, the stand of the revisionist that anti-dating is made fortifies. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that it is neither the case of anti-dating, nor the case is beyond the period of statutory limitation. He further submits that the order was passed on 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice. But for the first time was mentioned in the assessment order. However, the applicant furnished details of the sales in course of export through Ikea Trading India (P) Ltd. and direct export, which was rejected by the appellate authority for having been filed for the first time, and the Tribunal erred in confirming this issue without considering this aspect of the matter that this issue was not raised in the show cause notice? X) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee has not maintained any production register showing that the goods have not been sold in U.P., whereas the applicant is 100% export unit, therefore, assessment of turnover for want of production register cannot be made at Rs. 40,00,000.00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the anti-dating of the order has been made just to overcome the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 21(5) of the Act. List this matter on 21.4.2022. In view of above fact, learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the record of the case to show why the order dated 12.11.2002 was not served after giving to the process server on 13.11.2002. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the record, as indicated above, on the next date fixed. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Meerut Zone, Meerut, shall remain personally present in Court on the next date fixed. " Thereafter, on 21.04.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Meerut was present before the Court as the comp....