TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner is a Registered Dealer registered under the Provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994. For the year 1994- 95, 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1998-99 and regular assessment orders were passed on different dates. The dates and details of the above orders are not relevant because of the reason that those original assessment orders are not under challenge in these revision petitions. After the above assessment orders the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act of 1994, on the ground of escaped assessment were initiated against the petitioner for all these four assessment years. For this purpose notices were issued to the assessee by the Assessing Authority in the month of June 2000. Admittedly notices for initiation of proceedings under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 were within limitation as provided under Section 30 (3) of the Act of 1994. Separate Assessment Orders were passed by the Assessing Authority for above four assessment years under Section 30 on 1st August 2000. Assessee being aggrieved against the order dated 1st August 2000 preferred four separate appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Jodhpur which were decided by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Jodhpur vide separate orders dated 31st August 2001. The Appellate Authority after giving some relief to the assessee remanded the matter back to the Assessing Authority for passing fresh assessment orders about tax liability of the assessee. According to the petitioner the Assessment Order could have been passed by the Assessing Authority after remand only within a period of two years from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Authority which is the limitation provided for passing the assessment order in pursuance of remand order under Section 29 (8) (b) of the Act of 1994. That limitation expired on 5th November 2003. The Assessing Authority itself was of the view that period for passing assessment order is two years only and that period is to expire on 5th November 2003]therefore, Assessing Authority sought extension of time from Commissioner Commercial Taxes under Section 29 (8) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes,jaipur, vide its order dated 11st July 2003 extended the period for passing the assessment order within further period of six months by exercising power under Section 29 (8) (b ). The Assessing Authority therefore, only because of the fact that time was extended by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, could pass order of Assessment on 16th February 2004. In the assessment order also the Assessing Authority clearly mentioned that the period to decide the matter has been extended by the Commissioner under Section 29 (8) (b), therefore, the Assessing Authority can pass the order of assessment. In sum and substance according to assessee, the revenue's own case was that the assessment orders have been passed in extended period under section 29 (8) (b) and otherwise it would have been barred by time. The petitioner preferred appeals to challenge the orders of the Assessing Authority dated 16th February 2004]passed after remand by preferring appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Jodhpur. In appeals the petitioner took specific objection that extension of time granted by the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes vide order dated 11th July 03 in all these cases is absolutely null and void, as has been passed in violation to the statutory requirement under Section 29 (8) (b ). According to the petitioner the Commissioner could have extended the period of limitation for passing assessment order but he could have done so after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee and by passing reasoned order. According to petitioner a bare perusal of the order dated 11th July 2003 clearly reveals that order extending period of limitation passed under Section 29 (8) (b) is not reasoned order. Admittedly no notice was given to the assessee by the Commissioner before passing order dated 11th July 2003. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in case of CTO Spl. Circle Udaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd 1992 (85) STC 142 held that the order of extension of time under section 29 (8) (b) of the Act of 1994 can be passed after notice to the assessee and order should be reasoned and reasons must come out from the order itself. The said objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner Appeals while dismissing all four appeals vide order dated 22-12-2004 on the ground that the petitioner- appellants had knowledge of the order of extension of time at least from 19th July 2003 but he did not challenge the said order of extension dated 11th July 2003 till the Assessment order was passed and has challenged the order in appeal. The Appellate Authority was also of the view that objections raised by the appellant petitioner is technical in nature. Being aggrieved against order dated 22-12-2004 of the dismissal of the appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), after rejection of the objection of the petitioner about limitation within which assessment order could have been passed by the Assessing Authority, the appellant petitioner preferred appeals before the Tax Board, Ajmer. The Tax Board, Ajmer, dismissed the petitioners appeal vide common order dated 6-9-2005 and also rejected petitioners said objection on the ground that the order passed by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes is reasoned order and also took the view that the appellant failed to take action in time against the order of extension of time.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with full vehemence is that once proceedings under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 started and assessment order has been passed under Section 30 on the ground of escapement of assessment and thereafter appeal is preferred and Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority then Assessing Authority can pass assessment order only within the period of two years as provided under Section 29 (8) (b) and no assessment order can be passed after expiry of two years. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if the order of the Commissioner dated 11th July 2003 goes then Assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authority on 16th February 04 will also go. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of Section 30 (3) which provides limitation for initiation of proceedings for assessment in case of escaped assessment as well as limitation for completion of proceedings by passing assessment order is not applicable in case where Appellate Authority passed the order of remand in case where original proceedings were initiated under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 and for passing assessment order, limitation will be as given in Section 29 (8) (b ). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a case of Shiv Ratan vs. CTO Bikaner WLC (Raj) 1993 (2) page 374 in an identical facts and circumstances of present case where the matter was remanded by the Revisional Authority to the Assessing Authority and when notices were issued by the Assessing Authority under Section12 of the Act of 1954, (under the Act which was applicable at that time) this Court took the view that in fact proceedings are under Section 10 (b) (2) and not under Section 12. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that firstly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the order of extension of time by the Commissioner under Section 29 (8) (b), it has not resulted into any prejudice to the petitioner because of the reason that the Original Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Authority and when proceedings under Section 30 were initiated the plea of the petitioner was accepted with respect to levy of tax on net sale and therefore, by the ultimate result petitioner has not suffered any prejudice. In view of above, the petitioners' appeals against the order of Assessing Authority dated 16th February 2004 itself were misconceived. ;