The said Appellate Authority by its order dated 21.1.
Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appellants appeal arising out of the application for rectification of the assessment order passed in respect of the assessment year 1975 76, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh.
v. Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 15 Thereafter the assessee filed an application for recti fication of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes requesting him to set aside the order passed on revision under section 21 of that Act on the ground that the revision of assessment was barred by limita tion under section 21 3 of that Act and as such there was a mistake apparent on the record.
Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal the Department filed four revision applica tions before the High Court of Allahabad.
In support of the above plea the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v.H.R. Sri Ramulu, 1977 2 S.C.R. 593 which was a case arising under the Mysore Karnataka Sale Tax Act, 1957.
On the appointed day, his advocate appeared and submitted the accounts books.
The appellant firm is a dealer carrying on business in Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
1979 passed in respect of the said assessment year had ceased to exist on the re opening of the assessment by the numberice issued under section 21 of the Act and the final order under that section had been passed on 18.1.
All the four applications made by the appellant were reject ed by the Sales Tax Officer on merits on 3.1.
In that case the original assessment order had been passed on March 21, 1963.
The audit, however, had objected that the busi nessmans arhat companymission and mandi cess amount was left out from taxation.
The appellant, there fore, filed four applications under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the mistakes in the assessment orders for assessment years 1975 76, 1976 77, 1977 78 and 1978 79 on the ground that the turnover in respect of pur chases made on behalf of Ex U.P. principles had been wrongly assessed to sales tax in the aforementioned four years.
The applications for rectification made in respect of assessment years 1976 77, 1977 78 and 1978 79 were all within three years of the assessment orders but the application made in respect of the assessment order in respect of the assessment year 1975 76 was beyond three years from the date of the original order of assessment which had been made on 7.2.
On examination it was found that the businessman had already included the arhat and mandi cess amount in the taxable income and he had already been assessed.
On this basis the businessman was called by issuing him numberice under the said section.
There upon the appellant preferred appeals against the orders rejecting the applications before the Appellate Authority.
It, however, allowed the revision application filed by the Department in respect of the application for rectification of the assessment order for the assessment year 1975 76 on the ground that the application for rectifi cation had been filed beyond three years from the date of the original order dated 7.2.
3 18 of 1985.
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the said application.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No.
The order passed by the Sales Tax Officer reads thus Office of the Sales Tax Officer Sector 2, Mathura S Shri Kundan Lal Srikishan Lala Gan j, Mathu ra Year 75 76 Section 21 ORDER UNDER SECTION 21 The original tax assessment order in respect of you was passed on 7.2.79.
An order of assessment was passed in respect of the turnover of the appellant for the year 1975 76 by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 2, Mathura under the Act on 7.2.1979.
1980 within three years from the date of the application for rectification which had been filed on 4.11.
The material part of section 21 of the Act, which is relevant for the purposes of this case, reads thus Assessment of tax on the turnover number assessed during the year 1 If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or has been under assessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under this Act, or any deductions or exemp tions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, after issuing numberice to the dealer and making such inquiry as it may companysider necessary assess or re assess the dealer or tax according to law Section 22 of the Act provides that the assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Tribunal may, on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake in its order, apparent on the record within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified.
The question for companysideration is whether for purposes of limitation the date of the order of assessment for the year 1975 76 in the instant case should be the date of the original assessment order, i.e., 7.2.
The High Court by its order dated 15.11.
Thereafter there was an order of reassessment made under section 12A of the Mysore Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on June 8, 1966 because certain amounts had escaped assessment under the original assessment order.
Sd B. Lal Sales Tax Officer Sector 2, Mathura Dated 18.1.80 In the year 1982, the appellant realised that it was number liable to pay sales tax on purchases made on behalf of Ex P. principals as such purchases had occasioned inter State movement of the companymodities in question and were as such exempt from the purview of the Act.
The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on June 28, 1967 on the ground that the said order had been passed without jurisdiction as the power of revision had been exercised beyond the prescribed period of four years from the date of the original assessment order dated March 21, 1963.
1979 and that the order dated 18.1.1980 passed under section 21 of the Act had numbereffect on the question of limitation.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was enti tled to succeed on merits in each of the appeals and further held that the rectification application made in respect of the assessment order for the assessment year 1975 76 was within limitation as the original order dated 7.2.
The Department also preferred second appeals against the orders of rectification passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of the orders of assessment for assessment years 1976 77, 1977 78 and 1978 79.
The Tribunal disposed of all the appeals by a companymon order dated 26.2.
1983 allowed the appeals relating to the assessment orders for the assessment years 1976 77, 1977 78 and 1978 79 on merits but dismissed the appellants appeal in respect of the assessment order for the assessment year 1975 76 on the ground that the appellants application for rectification filed under section 22 of the Act had been filed beyond three years from the date of the original order of assess ment and was thus barred by limitation.
After looking into the books of accounts and hearing the advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant, the Sales Tax Officer passed the order under section 21 of the Act on the same date holding that the appellant was number liable to pay any more tax under the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1985 dismissed three of the Departments revision applications pertaining to the appel lants rectification applications in respect of the assess ment orders for the assessment years 1976 77, 1977 78 and 1978 79 on merits holding that the orders of the Tribunal were companyrect and numberground had been made out to interfere with them.
625 of 1986.
Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan and Madan Lokur for the Appellant.
Therefore, numbertax is to be levied number and the businessman is declared as free from paying any more tax under section 21.
1985 by which it allowed the appeal of the appellant and dismissed the appeals filed by the Department.
Gopal Subramanium.
Thereafter on June 28, 1967 the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order revising the order dated June 8, 1966 as a companysequence of the decision of this Court in Shinde Brothers etc.
The brief facts which are necessary for deciding this case are these.
Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The short question which arises for companysideration in this appeal relates to the period of limi tation within which an application for rectification of an order of reassessment passed under section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 Uttar Pradesh Act No.
XV of 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act can be pre ferred under section 22 of the Act.
R.S. Rana and Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondents.
The assessee questioned the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commer cial Taxes before the Mysore Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Thereafter on January 8, 1980 the Sales Tax Officer issued a numberice to the appellant under section 21 of the Act proposing to make a reassessment in respect of the said assessment year, i.e., 1975 76 on the ground that the mandi cases and arhat companymission which should have been included in the turnover had escaped as sessment and directed the appellant to appear before him along with its account books on 18.1.
1979 but within three years from the date of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer under section 21 of the Act.
