Pankaj Bhatia, J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for Commercial Tax Department.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order for Assessment Year 2013-14 U.P. and Assessment Year 2013-14 Entry Tax passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-8, Meerut (respondent no. 1) both dated 28.10.2016 and served upon the petitioner on 13.9.2017.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of the survey dated 27.6.2013, the Assessing Authority proposed to assess the petitioner for Assessment Year 2013-14 Entry Tax allegedly for the suppressed purchasers of sugar brought side from local area. Subsequently, for the Assessment Year 2013-14 U.P. and Assessment Year 2013-14 Entry Tax , the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order on 31.7.2015 creating liability of Rs. 20,37,183/- and Rs. 2,10,000/- towards entry tax. The said assessment orders dated 31.7.2015 were reopened on the application of the petitioner, however, again on 29.3.2016, assessment orders were passed against the petitioners, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners prior to the passing of the order dated 29.3.2016, the same were reopened under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 by the order of the respondent no. 1 on 30.6.2016. After reopening the ex parte assessment order dated 30.6.2016, a show cause notice dated 28.9.2016 was served on the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the respondent no. 1 along with entire books of accounts on 15.10.2016. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, the counsel for the petitioner appeared and made submissions, however, no orders were passed and, subsequently, on 13.9.2017, the petitioner was served with the assessment orders under Section 28(2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and Section 9 sub-section 4 of the Entry Tax Act, the said orders dated 13.9.2017 are under challenge in the present writ petition and the main ground of challenge is that the same were passed after the expiry of period provided under section 28(2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. It was stated and argued at the bar that the assessment orders are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 29 sub-section 6 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. Section 29 sub-section 6 of the Value Added Tax Act is quoted as under:

(6) Where an order of assessment or re-assessment has been set aside by the assessing authority himself under section 32, a fresh order of assessment or re-assessment may be made before expiry of the assessment year in which such order of assessment or reassessment has been set aside:

4. Provided that if an order of assessment or re-assessment made ex parte is set aside on or after first day of October in any assessment year, fresh order of assessment or re-assessment may be made on or before thirtieth day of September of the assessment year succeeding the assessment year in which such ex parte order of assessment or re-assessment was set aside.

5. Provided further that where second or subsequent time any order of assessment or reassessment is made ex parte and where such second or subsequent ex parte order of assessment or reassessment is to be set aside and a fresh order of assessment or reassessment may be made within the time aforementioned when the first ex parte order is set aside.

6. The said section clearly stipulates that the fresh order of assessment or reassessment has to be passed before the expiry of the assessment year in which such order of assessment or reassessment has been set aside. In view of the fact that the ex parte assessment order was passed on 30.6.2016, the order of fresh assessment had to be made by 31.3.2017 on which date the limitation to pass the order would expire.

7. The submission by the petitioner further that the order served on the petitioner on 13.9.