PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) THE Commissioner of Trade Tax feeling aggrieved by order of the Trade Tax. Tribunal, Kanpur, Bench - 1 passed in four connected second appeal Nos. 1 of 2007 to 4 2007 for the assessment years 1997 -98 (U.P.) and (Central) and 1998 -99 (U.P.) and (Central), has field the above four revisions in this Court questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the orders of the Tribunal.
(2.) THE dealer opp -party, a limited company is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of vegetable oil and refined oil. The assessments for the assessment year 1997 -98 (U.P.) and (Central) were framed by the Assessing Authority on 27 27th of February, 1997. Similarly assessment orders for the assessment year 1998 -99 under (U.P.) and (U.P.) and (Central) were framed on June 17, 2000. Certain exemptions (consignment sales) were granted by the Assessing Officer, treating the claim as put forward by the dealer as correct and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, on verification of claim for exemption with regard to the consignment sales were found to be incorrect. It was discovered that Form 'I' claiming exemption on the basis thereof that the transaction in questions were consignment sale was found to be incorrect as it was discovered by the departments that the respective dealers were never issued the said form F by their Sales Tax Department. The Trade Tax Department, thus formed an opinion that the turnover of the dealer opp -party has excaped assessment taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of case as well as the letter written by the Sales Tax Officer, ward 61, New Delhi informing about the cancellation of registration of S/s. Garg Trading Company Subhash Park, who allegedly issued said Form F to the dealer (opp -party herein) issued four notices under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) for the aforesaid two assessment years under (U.P.) and (Central), after obtaining the permission as required thereunder from the concerned authority. The Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) -7 Trade Tax Kanpur who had initialed proceeding under Section 21 of the Act after considering the submission of the dealer and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, discharged the notices and closed the proceedings under Section 21 on the finding that even if, the benefit under Section 6 -A was wrongly granted on the basis of forms (F) which were never issued as found subsequently, no adverse inference can be drawn against the dealer by the order dated May 29, 2003. Joint Commissioner Trade Tax, a higher authority, was of the view that the order dated 29.5.2003, discharging the notice under Section 21 of the Act, being illegal, initiated proceeding by invoking power conferred on it under Section 10 -B of the Act. The said proceedings are still pending. However, a preliminary objection was raised by the dealer opp -party that the proceedings under Section 10 -B if barred by time as it has been initiated after the expiry of the period of four years commencing, from the date of assessment order dated 27thof February, 1999 for the assessment year 1997 -98 (U.P.) and (Central) and 17thof June, 2000 for the assessment year 1997 -98 (U.P.) and (Central). The said plea with regard to the limitation was rejected by the Joint Commissioner (Executive) by the order dated 24thof July 2006 which was challenged by filing four second appeals being second appeal Nos. 1 of 2004 to 4 of 2007, referred to above. The Trade Tax Tribunal by the impugned order dated March 13, 2007 allowed all the appeals and held that the period of limitating would start running from the date of original assessment orders i.e. 27thof February, 1999 for the assessment year 1997 -98 and 17thof June, 2000 for the assessment year 1998 -99. therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 10 -B of the Act is barred by time. Hance, the above four revisions at the instance of the Commissioner of Trade Tax.
(3.) ALL these revisions were clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement, as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties for the sake of convenience.;