HIRA LAL RATANLAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Regular assessment for the assessment year 1973-74 was passed on March 28, 1978. The assessee aggrieved by the order filed first appeal which was allowed on September 2, 1981. Department felt aggrieved and filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed on August 17, 1988. Simultaneously, while passing the assessment order the assessing authority issued notice under Section 21 on March 28, 1978 itself and the assessment order was passed on February 28. 1979. The dealer filed first appeal and the first appellate authority remanded the matter to the assessing authority. Tribunal dismissed second appeal of the revisionist. This order of the Tribunal has been challenged in the revision, under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

(3.) Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that there was no material before the assessing authority, on the date of issuing of the notice under Section 21 and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal has taken a wrong view that by issuance of notice under Section 21 the original assessment order is wiped out. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the assessee had claimed exempt from payment of tax in respect of certain purchases but on subsequent verification it was found that some of the purchases were taxable and the assessing authority rightly initiated proceedings under Section 21.