Heard Sri R. R. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated February 25, 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur for the assessment years 2003-04 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

The contention of the petitioner is that the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur, has issued the notices under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner filed the reply dated February 23, 2010 to the aforesaid notices, annexure 3 to the writ petition but while passing the impugned orders, the submissions made in the reply have not been considered at all and the approval has been granted only in the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the orders are vitiated, inasmuch as the submissions have not been considered and, therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

In support of the contentions reliance has been placed on the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade - I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] 26 VST 601, in the case of Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly reported in [2007] 35 NTN 31, and in the case of Yadav Traders v. State of U.P. reported in [2010] 29 VST 107 (All); [2009] UPTC 576.

The learned standing counsel states that let the matter be remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur to pass fresh order in accordance to law and the limitation should be saved as has been saved in the case of S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] 26 VST 601 (All).

We have perused the impugned order. The impugned order reveals that the submissions made in the reply have not been considered at all and the approval has been granted mechanically only in the interest of Revenue. Such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.

In the case of Ramayan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment III), Trade Tax, Bareilly [2007] 35 NTN 31, which has been relied on by the subsequent Division Bench of this court in the case of Yadav Traders v. State of U.P. [2010] 29 VST 107 (All); [2009] UPTC 576, it has been held as follows :

"From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it would be seen that he has not dealt with any of the grounds given in the reply submitted by the petitioners. He has only given his conclusion. No finding has been recorded nor any reason has been assigned as to why the approval/sanction should be granted. Except for the aforesaid order dated July 12, 2001, which has been brought on record by the petitioner, the respondents have not brought any other order passed by respondent No. 2, which may show that any other reasons have been assigned. The order dated 12th July, 2001 does not contain any reason and, therefore, as held by this court in the case of Manaktala Chemicals Pvt. Limited v. State of U.P. reported in [2007] 5 VST 284 (All); [2006] UPTC 1128 and S.K. Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Grade - I, Trade Tax, Zone, Ghaziabad reported in [2009] 26 VST 601 (All) (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 483 of 2002), decided today, reasons have to be assigned by the Additional Commissioner while granting sanction/approval for initiating proceeding under section 21(2) of the Act. As no reason has been assigned, the authorization/sanction dated July 12, 2001 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside."

In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order passed under section 21(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2003-04 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Grade I, Commercial Tax, Kanpur Zone I, Kanpur to pass the order afresh in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of presentati