CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 09 AHC CK 0007

Agarwal Paper Mart vs Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 September 2011 · Citation: (2011) 188 ECR 235

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Ambwani, J · Kashi Nath Pandey, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Tax No. 1338 of 2011
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all Respondents. He prays for and is allowed four weeks'' time to file counter affidavit. The Petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

2.

List on 15.11.2011.

3.

It is submitted by Shri R.R. Agarwal, that for the assessment year 2005-06 (UP) the assessment proceedings for both Commercial Tax as well as Entry Tax were concluded. The Petitioner produced all the relevant materials, bills & invoices including, ''tissue paper''. A notice was thereafter given on the basis of sanctioning order dated 24.8.2011 extending the limitation for reassessment, giving rise to this writ petition.

4.

Shri R.R. Agarwal submits that in the sanctioning order, it is stated that after perusal of the bills, it was found that the Petitioner has also sold, ''tissue paper'' vide bill Nos. 248 and 280, and on which the Taxation Officer has not applied his mind; the ''tissue paper'', is not included within the meaning of paper in the relevant entry. It is not paper as understood in the commercial parlance and is liable to be taxed as unspecified item.

5.

Prima facie we find substance in both the contentions raised by Shri R.R. Agarwal, that the Petitioner has disclosed the entire material including bills and invoices in which the word ''tissue paper'' was clearly mentioned, and thus the assessing authority had material available before him of the sale of the ''tissue paper'', and secondly the judgment given by Karnataka High Court ignoring the judgment of the Supreme Court, which arose from this Court, in State of U.P. v. Kores (India) Ltd. 1977 UPTC 46, could not be a ground in which the sanctioning authority could have formed an opinion that there was escapement of the assessment of tax.

6.

Until further orders, the re-assessment proceedings in pursuance to the notice dated 25.8.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for the assessment year 2005-06 (UP), as well as sanction order dated 24.8.2011 passed by Respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed.