M/S GOODLUCK TRADERS V. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P.

STRE/49/2023

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Goodluck Traders, who were engaged in the business of purchasing and selling coal and charcoal, contesting an assessment order under the UP Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007. The revisionist argued that the assessment order was time-barred, as it was passed beyond the statutory limitation period. The Commercial Tax Tribunal had dismissed the revisionist's appeals, leading to the current revision before the High Court. The High Court found procedural irregularities in the transfer of jurisdiction and the timing of the assessment order, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690170 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, M/s Ganesh Plywood Emporium Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP Lucknow
• Laws Referred To: UP Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B K PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUYASH AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Commercial Tax Tribunal; Entry Tax; Limitation; Writ petition
• Section: 21(6); 9(4)

Judgement Text

"1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84657 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 49 of 2023 Revisionist :- M/S Goodluck Traders Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Suyash Agarwal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. 1. Heard Shri R.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State – respondent. 2. By means of present revision, the revisionist is assailing the order dated 16.2.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal Bench II, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 02 of 2023 (A.Y. 2003-04). 3. The instant revision was admitted vide order dated 13.4.2023 on the following substantial question of law:- \"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to hold that the Assessment Order dated 31.12.2013 for A.Y. 2003-04 passed under section 9 (4) of UP Tax on Entry of Goods Into Local Areas Act, 2007, framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector 18, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad, is not time barred. ?\" 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist submits that the revisionist was carrying out the business of purchase and sale of coal, charcoal etc. and did not admit any tax liability under the Entry Tax Act. The revisionist challenged the proceeding initiated against him for the A.Y. 2003-04 by filing writ petition 2 no. 351 of 2006 before this Court in which stay was granted vide order dated 28.3.2006 but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2012. After dismissal of the writ petition, the State has applied for certified copy of the order on 31.5.2012 and same was received on 12.6.2012 and the Commercial Tax Department has received the copy from the High Court on 26.7.2012. Thereafter, a letter dated 13.2.2013 was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Sector 12, Ghaziabad and the assessment order was passed on 31.12.2013, which was time barred. 5. He further submits that as per Section 21 (6) of the Act, the period of stay will be excluded and on receipt of certified copy of the order same ought to have been passed within six months but the impugned order has been passed on 31.12.2013, which is beyond period of limitation, therefore, order could not have been passed. He further submits that against the assessment order, an appeal was filed specifically on the ground of limitation but the same was dismissed against which a second appeal has been filed in which same ground of limitation has been raised but the same was also dismissed without considering the material on record. 6. He submits that the original assessing authority of the revisionist is Deputy Commissioner Assessment Commercial Tax, Sector - 1, Hapur but the assessment order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad. The authorities below have wrongly treated the service upon the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad on 7.11.2013 and from that date the limitation has been counted. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist further submits that on the date of passing of the order in the writ petition i.e. 28.3.2012, the limitation starts. He further submits 3 that even assuming without admitting that the date of limitation must be counted from the date when the letter dated 13.2.2013 was sent along with the certified copy of the order passed by this Court and the same was received, the assessment order ought to have been passed within six months from the date of receipt of the same but the Tribunal as well as the authorities below instead of allowing the appeal on the ground of limitation have wrongly dismissed the appeal of the revisionist. 8. In support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Pearless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Assessing Officer, (2001) 117 Taxman 253 (Allahabad). He submits that meaning of assessing authority has been provided under Section 2 (b) read with Rule 3 (3), which is analogous to the provisions of Section 2 (7A) of Income Tax Act. He submits that the assessing authority is not extracted to the person who passes the order of assessment but all other authorities who are authorized to discharge the services of assessing authority. 9. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that Section 21 (6) of the Act is clear, which authorizes the assessing authority to pass the assessment order after receipt of such order of the higher court of passing the assessment order accordingly. 10. In support of his submission, learned ACSC has relied upon the judgment of this Court in M/s Ganesh Plywood Emporium Varanasi Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP Lucknow 1996, UPTC 672. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 4 12. It is not in dispute that revisionist approaches this Court for challenging the validity of Entry Tax Act and the interim order was granted in favour of the revisionist/ petitioner therein. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2012 to which the respondent authority has applied for certified copy of the order on 31.5.2012 and delivery of the same was taken on 26.7.2012 though the same was ready on 12.6.2012. Thereafter, after a long gap, the same was sent vide letter dated 13.2.2013 by the office of Commercial Tax, High Court Works to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad. Once the letter was received at Ghaziabad, the order ought to have been passed accordingly, within six months from its receipt. The record shows that originally the assessing authority of the revisionist was Deputy Commissioner, Assessment, Commercial Tax, Sector 1, Hapur but the order of the assessment has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad. The respondent authority at no stage has brought on record any material to show as to how the case of the revisionist has been transferred from Deputy Commissioner, Assessment Commercial Tax, Sector 1, Hapur to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 18, Ghaziabad. 13. The record further shows that a report was called for by the Tribunal and the same was submitted by letter dated 15.2.2023, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 9 to this revision but how the jurisdiction of the assessing authority of the revisionist was transferred and under which order, the same has neither been brought on record nor a word has been whispered in that respect. In the absence of any such material available on record, the change of assessing authority, who has passed the present assessment order, is not justified. 5 14. In view of above, the matter requires reconsideration by the assessing authority and for that purpose, the impugned order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal is hereby set aside. 15. The matter is remanded to the assessing authority, who shall pass fresh assessment order, in accordance with law. 16. It is made clear that while passing the fresh order, the revisionist must be informed in detail along with copy of the orders, if any, in respect of transferring the jurisdiction of the assessing authority of the revisionist. 17. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. 18. The questions of law are answered accordingly. Order Date :-20.5.2025 Rahul Dwivedi Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "