R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner- M/s Narain Soap Works seeks the following reliefs: "(i) issue a suitable writ, order at direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure 3) passed by the Trade Tax Officer, Kanpur for the A.Y. 1981-82 (U.P.) and also quash all consequential proceedings. ii) issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 not to initiate any proceedings of reassessment against the petitioner for the A.Y. 1981-82 (U.P.) iii) award the costs of the petition to the petitioner".
(2.) Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to the present petition, are as follows:
(3.) The petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soap. It is registered as a dealer both under the provisions of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). For the Assessment Year 1981-82 under the U.P. Act the petitioner disclosed, a taxable turnover of Rs. 5,16,600.70 and admitted its tax liability of Rs. 30,965.30. The Trade tax Officer, Sector 12 Kanpur-respondent No. 2 who is the assessing authority of the petitioner did riot accept the books of account and the disclosed turnover of the petitioner and made a best judgement assessment determining the tax liability of Rs. 48,965.30 on a total turnover of Rs. 8,16,868/-. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax Kanpur, who vide order dated 30th April, 1986 had dismissed the appeal. Still feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur. The Tribunal vide order dated 28th April, 1994 had allowed the appeal and after setting aside the assessment order had directed the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with the direction issued by it. The order dated 28th April. 1994 passed by the Tribunal had been received by the Assessing Authority on 9th June, 1994. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 did not pass any order in compliance with and in pursuance of the order dated 28th April, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal within the period of one year from the date of receipt of the order by him as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act which expired on 8th June 1995. However, to get over this situation, the respondent No. 2 made a proposal to the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Kanpur-respondent No. 1 to give sanction for initiating proceeding under Section 21 of the U.P. Act. The respondent No. 1 issued a show-cause notice on 16th January, 2002 purporting to be under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the U.P. Act calling upon the petitioner to show-cause why reassessment proceeding may not be initiated. In the notice it has been mentioned that the fresh assessment order was not passed in compliance of the order of the Tribunal within the prescribed period and, therefore, necessity has arisen to initiate proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. In compliance of the aforesaid notice the petitioner submitted its reply on 19th January, 2002 raising the question of limitation as also the jurisdiction of the authority to issue direction for initiation of the reassessment proceedings. In its reply, the petitioner has also relied upon the following two decisions: 1. Hamirmal Kewal Chand v. C.S.T. [1980 UPTC 594] and 2. Modi Industries Ltd. v. CST [1980 (45)STC 423];