Point of Law: Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said provision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Vishnu Kesarwani, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.

2. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - 2, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 136 of 2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings initiated under section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, in which following questions of law have been framed:-

"(i) Whether in view of the facts & circumstances, the Tribunal's act and decision holding the learned Joint Commissioner' Order legal was in accordance with Act.

(iv) Whether section 56(1) of the Act permits the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the Commissioner or Joint Commissioner for assessment/re-assessment?"

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings initiated under section 56(1) of the VAT Act against the applicant are bad and without authority of law, as the assessing authority has sought permission for reassessment on various grounds under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. On issuance of notice, the dealer has specifically objected for initiation of proceedings under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. Copy of reply to the notice has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the revision. He submits that while passing the order dated 30.09.2016, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Kanpur has specifically notices on the opening paragraph of its order (Annexure No. 7 to the revision), but failed to decide the core issue as to whether the permission can be granted to the assessing authority for reassessment under section 56(1) of the Act. On appeal before the Tribunal, again specific ground no. 11 was taken raising the issue of initiation of jurisdiction by the Commissioner granting permission to reassess the assessee. The Tribunal, while deciding the issue has referred to the judgement of this Court in M/s Samrat Carpet Vs. CTT reported in 1999 UPTC 1023 and held that the Commissioner had power to grant permission for reassessment, which is bad. He prays for allowing the revision.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the initiation of proceedings and the order passed by the authorities below. He submits that the Commissioner has a power under section 56(1) of the VAT Act to revise the order of the assessing authority and therefore, the order is justified. He prays for dismissal of the revision.

5. The Court has perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the proceedings have been initiated under section 56(1) of the VAT Act seeking permission by the assessing authority to reassess the dealer on certain points. In pursuance thereof, notice was issued. In reply to the said notice, an objection was raised by the dealer objecting for initiation of proceedings and the competence of the authority for granting such permission under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. Copy of the reply has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the revision. Relevant portion is at page 76, which is quoted below:-

^^6- ;g fd Á'uxr uksfVl ds iSjk&2 esa dj fu/kkZjd vf/kdkjh }kjk dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ,oa iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dh vuqefr ekaxs tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼1½ ls Li"V gS fd dfe'uj ;k dfe'uj }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dks /kkjk 56¼1½ ds vUrxZr dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ds iqujh{k.k dh 'kfDr dqN 'krksZ ds v/khu ÁkIr gSA Á'uxr uksfVl esa vafdr Hkk"kk ls Li"V gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dk iqujh{k.k ekuuh; dfe'uj ;k mlds }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk ugha fd;k gS] cfYd dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼2½ esa dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr@iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k djus dh vuqefr ekaxh xbZA vr% Á'uxr Ádj.k esa /kkjk 56¼2½ ds vUrxZr d`r dk;Zokgh vkjEHkr% voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA**

7. While granting permission under section 56(1) of the VAT Act, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), in its order dated 30.09.2016, has stated as under:-

^^O;kikjh dk o"kZ 2009&10 ÁkUrh; okn esa vflLVsUV dfe'uj] okf.kT;dj] [k.M&9] dkuiqj }kjk /kkjk&56 ds vUrxZr iqu% dj