- (1.) These writ petitions have been filed by a single petitioner against common respondents and relate to identical matters. They were, therefore, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The petitioner was a partner in a firm M/s. Kasodhan Sulphur Sugar Mills which owned a khandsari unit. The firm was liable to pay sugarcane purchase tax in terms of the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessment orders determining the tax payable by the said firm for the month of December, 1982, January, 1983, February, 1983 and March, 1983 were passed by the assessing officer on 30th March, 1983, 30th March, 1983, 6th April, 1983 and 1st June, 1983 respectively. The tax so assessed was duly paid. Later on 25th May, 1987, the Assistant Sugar Commissioner in exercise of suo-motu powers under Sec. 3-B of the Act issued show cause notices to the firm and ultimately passed orders dated 23rd June, 1986 revising the assessments for all the aforesaid months and enhancing the demand. It is the orders passed by the revising authority on 23rd June, 1986 which have been challenged in the present writ petitions.
(2.) Writ petition No. 1030 of 1988 relates to the assessment for the month of December, 1982, Writ Petition No. 1039 of 1988 pertains to assessment for the month of February, 1983, Writ Petition No. 1046 of 1988 relates to the assessment for the month of January, 1983 and Writ Petition No. 1047 of 1988 is in respect of assessment for the month of March, 1983.
(3.) The case of the petitioner in all the four petitions is that no notice of the intention to revise the assessments to show cause against the proposed revision was ever served on the petitioner thereby denying the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the enhancement. The petitioner's case is that under the terms of Sec. 3-B the revising authority was bound to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is also contended the revising authority could not initiate proceedings under sec. 3-B after a lapse of over three years.;