M/S Kanodia Cement Thru Its Director Gautam Kanodia vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the reassessment permission under Section 29(7) was granted on an incorrect premise that the appellate order was only on limitation, when it was also on merit. Given the pending appeal before the Tribunal against the appellate order, the impugned order for reassessment could not be sustained.
Facts
The petitioner's input tax credit for AY 2011-12 was disallowed, leading to a reassessment order. This order was set aside by the appellate authority on merit and limitation. Subsequently, the department sought permission for reassessment under Section 29(7) of the Act, which was granted by the impugned order.
Key Issues
Whether permission for reassessment under Section 29(7) can be granted when the appellate order was passed on merit and limitation, and an appeal against it is pending. Whether the basis for the impugned order was factually incorrect.
Sections Cited
Section 29(7), Section 29(1), Section 28(2)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 Reserved on 07.08.2018 Delivered on 14.08.2018 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 522 of 2017 Petitioner :- M/S Kanodia Cement Thru' Its Director Gautam Kanodia Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar,Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J. [ Per: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 17th June, 2017 passed by respondent no. 2, the Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad Zone-II, Ghaziabad [hereinafter referred to as “A.C. (C.T.)”] under Section 29 (7) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], giving permission to the respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar [hereinafter referred to as “the D.C. (C.T.)”] for reassessment of tax of the petitioner for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.”) 2011-12. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under 2 the Companies Act. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale o
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.