RATHI INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri BharatJi Agrawal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Shivani Agrawal and Shubham Agawal, the learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, the special counsel for the State of U.P.

(2.) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of M.S. Bar/ Tor Steel/ T.M.T. Bar etc. The petitioner, being a new unit, holds an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. For the assessment year 2003-04 under U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act, the books of account were rejected and a best judgment assessment was passed on 28.02.2005 after considering the material evidence. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Trade Tax, NOIDA, both under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, which is pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner received a notice dated 05.09.2005 under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act indicating therein that some part of turn-over had escaped assessment to tax and therefore, reassessment proceedings had been initiated. Similar notice was issued for reassessment proceedings under Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the notices No.767 and 768 dated 05.09.2005 for the assessment year 2003-04 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act has filed the present writ petition for its quashing.

(3.) Sri BharatJi Agrawal, the learned senior counsel contended that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid notices, it is evidently clear that no reason has been assigned and only a printed proforma notice has been issued mechanically without application of mind directing the petitioner to appear on a particular date and participate in the reassessment proceedings. The learned senior counsel contended that the order sheet of the file also does not indicate that any reasons were recorded in arriving at a conclusion that some part of the turnover had escaped assessment to tax. The learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of formation of a belief that some part of turnover had escaped assessment to tax, the impugned notices were bad in law and were liable to be quashed.