9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1971 (2) TMI 110 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Interpretation of sub-section (7) of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act regarding the exclusion of time period for computing the limitation. 2. Whether the period between the date of assessment and the date of service of the appellate order should be excluded for the purpose of limitation calculation. Detailed Analysis: 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered the interpretation of sub-section (7) of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act in this case. The court noted that the State had filed a revision against the Tribunal's order, which held that the scope of sub-section (7) of section 14 is limited to excluding the period between the date of assessment and the date of setting aside by the tribunal or court for the purpose of calculating the limitation period. The court examined the language of the provision, emphasizing that it refers to the date of assessment and the date of setting aside by the tribunal or court. The court concluded that the provision does not encompass the date of service of the appellate order in its interpretation. The court highlighted that the legislature did not intend to exclude the time taken for communicating the tribunal's or court's order for determining the limitation period. 2. The court delved into the specific facts of the case where the assessment for the year 1957-58 was initially made on 10th February 1959. Subsequently, after appeals and remand, the reassessment was completed on 31st March 1964, exceeding the limitation period. The court analyzed the timeline of events and the delays in reassessment. It was observed that the assessing authority received the tribunal's order on 24th February 1961, leading to a contention about excluding the period until the date of receiving the order for limitation calculation. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the language of sub-section (7) of section 14 does not support the exclusion of the period until the date of service of the appellate order. Consequently, the court upheld the Tribunal's order and dismissed the revision with costs, affirming that the intention of the legislature was not to include the time taken for communication of the tribunal's or court's order in computing the limitation period.
|
