- (1.) Heard Mr. Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. These two writ petitions, raise common question of law and facts with respect to the terms and conditions of the Compounding Scheme floated by the State Government under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and the meaning thereof though with respect to the different assessment years.
(2.) In Writ Petition No. 8770 (MB) of 2009, the challenge has been made to the assessment order dated March 18, 2009 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and also the order passed in appeal dated July 16, 2009, whereas in Writ Petition No. 4346 (MB) of 2010, the assessment year is 2007-08 and the order of the assessing authority dated March 29, 2010 has been challenged.
(3.) At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal filed against the assessment orders for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, which are the subject-matter of challenge in writ petition No. 8770 (MB) of 2009, has been dismissed as being not maintainable after observing that in a matter of dispute regarding the claim of benefit of the scheme floated under section 7D of the Act (Compounding Scheme), the competent authority is the Commissioner, Trade Tax and no other authority including the appellate authority; therefore, the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the present assessment order in writ petition No. 4346 (MB) of 2010, but has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution.;