- (1.) M. C. AGARWAL, J. These three revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against an order dated October 7, 1996 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeal Nos. 199, 200 and 201 of 1996 relating to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93.
(2.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The revisionist is a private limited company. The proceedings relate to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. With effect from January 28, 1994, i. e. , after the relevant assessment periods the name of the company was changed to U. E. M. India Private Limited. The assessment orders for the years under consideration were passed mentioning the name of the assessee as M/s. U. E. M. Private Limited, Atta, Noida. The revisionist moved an application under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the assessment orders contending that its name was wrongly mentioned in the assessment orders as during the relevant assessment year its name was Utility Equipment & Management Private Limited. This application was moved on April 22, 1996. The assessment orders for 1990-91 and 1991-92 were made on March 11, 1996 while that of 1992-93 were made on March 13, 1996. All the assessment orders were served on the revisionist on April 2, 1996. By an order dated May 10, 1996, the assessing officer allowed the application and corrected the name of the assessee in the assessment orders as Utility Equipment and Management Private Limited. The period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal against the assessment order is 30 days and counting this period from the date of the service of the amended order, i. e. , June 20, 1996, the revisionist filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) on July 20, 1996. Applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act were also made before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for condonation of delay mentioning the above facts as a cause for the delay. By order dated August 5, 1996 the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as barred by time holding that there was no sufficient cause for the delay because the mistake in the name is of a technical nature and could be got corrected even after filing of the appeals. Against this order the revisionist preferred the aforesaid appeals to the Tribunal and the same were dismissed holding that after the rectification order was served on the revisionist it should have immediately filed the appeals and there is no sufficient cause for delay after June 20, 1996. As is evident, the name of the company was changed from January 28, 1994. Anything done thereafter had to be in the new name and, therefore, the assessments made on March 11, 1996 and March 12, 1996 should have been only in the new name, i. e. , U. E. M. India Private Limited. There was only a very negligible mistake in mentioning the name inasmuch as the word "india" was omitted from the description in the assessment order. This omission could not have affected the validity of the assessment order. The revisionist's application under section 22 of the Act for rectification of the name was the result of a misunderstanding of the law and confusion and the assessing officer also acted mechanically in accepting the same and under the colour of rectifying the mistake made a mistake in giving a name which did not exist on the date of the assessment order. There was no company of the name of M/s. Utility Equipment and Management Private Limited and, therefore, the correction was itself erroneous. In fact the proper description of the assessee should have been "m/s. UEM India Private Limited" (formerly known as Utility Equipment and Management Private Limited ).
(3.) AS regards the appeals in the circumstances of the case neither the appeals can be said to be delayed nor it can be said that there was no sufficient cause for the assumed delay. If the name of the assessee was not correctly mentioned in the assessment orders as has been though wrongly accepted by the assessing officer, there was no valid assessment order against the assessee whose name was mentioned in the rectified assessment order. Therefore, that assessee could prefer an appeal only from the date of the service of the amended order only and from that date the appeal was within time. Even otherwise, in view of the confusion prevailing in the minds of the dealer and the assessing officer, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Such trifles should not come in the way of doing justice to a dealer. Therefore, the Tribunal's order dismissing the dealer's appeals is not legally sustainable. The revision petitions are allowed and setting aside the Tribunal's order dated October 7, 1996, it is ordered that the revisionist's appeals before the Tribunal stand allowed and the Deputy Commissioner's order dismissing the assessee's appeals as barred by time is set aside. The said appeals are held to be within the time prescribed by law. In the circumstances of the case, it would be open to the assessing officer to correct the name of the assessee in the assessment orders and the revisionist may also apply to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for amendment of the memorandum of appeal by correctly describing it present name. Petition allowed. .;