LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-219

NEERAJ KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On April 24, 2014
Neeraj Kumar Agarwal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated January 21, 2014 passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow, in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the notice dated March 15, 2014 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sector 1, Meerut for the assessment year 2009-10. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that earlier a recovery certificate dated November 9, 2011 was issued by the assessing officer with respect to the assessment year 2007-08 relating to the period from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008. This recovery certificate was issued pursuant to an assessment order of the assessing authority. The petitioner, instead of filing an appeal under section 55 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 1405 of 2012) under article 226 of the Constitution before the Lucknow Bench of this court. This petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated February 17, 2012. It was left open to the petitioner to file objections in response to the notice (actually a recovery certificate) dated November 9, 2011 within two weeks. The petitioner filed objections before the Commissioner which have been decided against the petitioner by the order dated January 21, 2014.

(2.) It also transpires from the records of the writ petition that a notice under section 28 of the Act has been issued to the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-10 and the petitioner has been asked to submit his reply. This notice has also been assailed in this petition.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised number of submissions for assailing the order passed by the Commissioner, but on a query being put by the court as to under which section of the Act, such objections were filed, learned senior counsel merely stated that these objections had been filed pursuant to the directions issued by the court in its judgment and order dated February 17, 2012 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1405 of 2012 earlier filed by the petitioner.