- (1.) The petitioner has inter alia, sought a writ of prohibition, restraining the respondent-Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Mathura from completing the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81. It appears that against the initial assessment order for the said assessment year, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, (Judicial) where the assessment order was set aside with the direction to make a fresh assessment. Against the directions of the appellate authority to make the assessment de novo the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal which stayed the assessment proceedings in pursuance of the remand order during the pendency of the appeal to it. Eventually, on March 27, 1989 the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal. Against the order passed by the Tribunal a revision was filed before this Court which was also dismissed on January 3, 1994. During the pendency of the proceedings in revision before this Court, there was no stay order in operation.
(2.) When the respondent-Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) took up the proceedings for fresh assessment in pursuance of the remand order, the petitioner objected that the assessment proceedings had become barred by time, inasmuch as, assessment if any,' in pursuance of the remand could be within one year of the receipt of remand order in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;