Case Law Details
M/s. R.M.G. Fabricators Kanpur Vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court); Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. – 123 of 2017; 31/03/2022
Section 56 of the U.P. VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said provision. For reassessment, different provision has been prescribed under the VAT Act,i.e., section 29 and its sub-sections. It is not the case of the Department that section has wrongly been quoted, but specifically the Joint Commissioner (Executive), in the opening paragraph of the order under section 56(1) of the VAT Act while granting permission, has mentioned the said fact that the permission for reassessment is sought by the assessing authority and the permission has wrongly been granted by the Joint Commissioner (Executive). The Joint Commissioner (Executive) has exceeded in his jurisdiction, which has been endorsed by the Tribunal without looking into the provisions of the Act, which is very clear. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal should have allowed the dealer’s appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Shri Vishnu Kesarwani, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
2. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench – 2, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 136 of 2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings initiated under section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, in which following questions of law have been framed:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
