K. C. AGRAWAL, C. J. - (1.) M/s. Hindustan Zinc Limited, Udaipur, was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. It carried on the business of manufacture and sale of zinc, acids and manure, etc. For the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the assessment proceedings were pending before the assessing authority on 7th April, 1979 and under section 10b (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the assessments were to be completed on or before 7th April, 1982. The assessing authority moved an application for extension of time under the second proviso to section 10b (1) (iv) of the Act for completion of the assessment and Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, vide his order No. F. 16/3/72/tax/cct/82/pt granted extension of time for completion of the assessment. On receipt of the order for extension of time, the assessing authority fixed the date of hearing for completion of the assessment proceeding. In pursuance of the notice issued by the assessing authority, the representatives of the assessee-firm appeared before him. The representatives were informed about the extension of time granted by the Additional Commissioner. The assessing authority levied tax on the assessee. Against the assessment order, the non-petitioner (assessee) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur. The appeal was decided by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28th February, 1983. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal wherein an objection was taken with regard to initiation of proceeding after receipt of sanction from the Additional Commissioner on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, hence the extension granted by him was without jurisdiction and the assessment proceedings were vitiated. Aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 1987, passed the Tribunal, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur, has preferred this revision as well as the connected revisions in the High Court. The sole point which arises for determination in these revisions is whether the order granting extension of time by the Additional Commissioner was invalid for the two reasons submitted before me. The first one was that the extension had been granted without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the second was that it was vitiated also because no reason had been given by the Additional Commissioner in granting extension. The relevant portion of section 10b of the Act reads as under : " (1) No assessment shall be made (i) to (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided further that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend in any particular case, the period specified in this sub-section by a period not exceeding six months. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing in any particular case extend the period specified in this clause by a further period not exceeding six months. "
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, extension was granted by the Additional Commissioner after limitation had expired and that no reasons for the same had been recorded. It was a stereo type order which does not give any reason for extension and only records its conclusion. The settled view is that extension granted without opportunity of hearing and without reasons having been recorded for the same invalidates the order. In Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC); AIR 1976 SC 437, the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with section 127 of the Income-Tax Act, held that recording reasons is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee or that the reasons were given in the prior show cause notice. Similar is the view of the Supreme Court in C. I. T. , West Bengal v. Oriental Rubber Works [1984] 145 ITR 477; AIR 1984 SC 230. This was also a case under section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act where the Supreme Court held that the Revenue is under the statutory obligation to communicate to the person from whose custody books of account and documents have been seized, the approval and the reasons on which the approval was based for the retention of the seized books of account. On a correct reading of the provisions quoted above, no other conclusion could be arrived at except that the assessee was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before extension was granted and also for reasons to be given in support of an order extending time for assessment. It has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1979] 44 STC 456 that the assessments which have become time barred cannot be bestowed a new lease of life by extension for making assessment order except by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. All proceedings taken without opportunity and recording of reasons are invalid. Sri Bhansali, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended that since this point had not been raised in the appeal, the same cannot be gone into and decided in favour of the assessee. I do not agree with this submission. The objection goes to the root of the matter and simply because it was not raised earlier, it cannot come in the way of the assessee from challenging before this Court. Admittedly, the assessment proceedings, otherwise had become final. The revision fails and are dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .;