The respondent challenged both these orders of sanction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the numberices for re assessment in two separate writ petitions which allowed by the High Court and the sanction orders of the Commissioner as well as numberices issued by the Sales Tax Officer were quashed.
8866 of 1997 assessment for the year 1985 86 was companypleted on February 28, 1990.
Section 21 of the Act also underwent an amendment and the relevant provision with which we are companycerned came into force with effect from February 19, 1991.
Different dates were prescribed for companying into force of various provisions of the amending Act.
By order dated March 29, 1957, the Income tax Officer companypleted re assessment proceedings.
Assessee went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed the same by Order dated January 5, 1963 and set aside the order of assessment on the ground that there was numbervalid service of numberice.
11015 of 1997 assessment for the year 1985 86 under the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 for short the Act was companypleted on November 27, 1989.
The Income tax Officer, therefore, after obtaining the approval of the Commissioner of Income tax issued numberice dated March 27, 1956 under Section 34 1 a of the Income Tax Act, 1922.
In J.P. Jani Income Tax Officer Circle IV Ward G Ahmedabad Anr.
Sanctions given and numberices thus issued were after more than four years with reference to the assessment year 1985 86 under the Act before its amendment.
In the case of Jyoti Traders date of sanction order is November 12, 1993 and the numberice had been issued for January 11, 1994.
Taking advantage of the amendment to section 21, which number prescribed a period of eight years, the Sales Tax Officer after taking sanction from the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued numberices to the respondents in both these appeals for re assessment.
In the case of Lohia Machine Ltd. sanction order is dated December 12, 1993 and numberice is dated September 8, 1994.
By this time, Income Tax Act, 1961 had companye into force.
In the appeal of Jyoti Traders arising out of SLP C No.
The amending Act received the assent of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on August 19, 1991.
After companysidering the provisions of the old Act and Section 297 of the new Act which repealed the old Act and on the effect of the repeal, this Court said that all the new sections must be read as applicable only to those cases where right of the Income tax Officer to re open the assessment was number barred under the repealed section.
Facts are similar.
Period for assessment or re assessment which is four years under section 21 of the Act, for the assessment year 1985 86 expired, on March 31, 1990.
The Act was extensively amended by the UP Sales Tax Amendment and Validation Act, 1991.
P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted.
In both these appeals which are against two separate judgments of the same Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a companymon question of law arises.
Assessee protested against this new numberice on the ground that action under the old Act had become time barred and the new Act had numberapplication to his case.
The Act is also called the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
This led to filing of the present appeals.
In the appeal of Lohia Machines Limited arising out of SLP C No.
It is that in the circumstances companyld a companypleted assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Law be re opened after the prescribed period when that period was enlarged by amending the law.
