9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (5) TMI 387 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is beyond the period of limitation. 2. Whether the impugned order is covered by section 24-A of the APGST Act and not barred by limitation. Issue 1: The main argument raised was regarding the timeliness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The appellant contended that the order was beyond the period of limitation, citing section 24-A of the APGST Act. The Government Pleader for the Revenue argued that the extended period of limitation provided under section 24-A applied in this case, as directed by the High Court in a previous writ petition. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the order was within the prescribed time limit as per the relevant legal provisions. Issue 2: The second issue centered on whether the impugned order fell under the purview of section 24-A of the APGST Act. Section 24-A stipulates a specific time frame for assessments or reassessments made in consequence of a court order. The judgment analyzed the language of section 24-A in detail to determine its applicability in the present case. The court highlighted that for the extended period of limitation to be relevant, the order in question must be a result of or in compliance with a court's finding or direction. The judgment delved into the specifics of the legal provisions to ascertain whether the impugned order met the criteria outlined in section 24-A. In a comprehensive analysis, the court scrutinized the timelines, legal provisions, and the directives issued in the previous writ petition to arrive at a decision. The judgment elucidated the nuances of section 24-A of the APGST Act and its implications on the case at hand. Ultimately, the court concluded that the impugned order was not within the prescribed time limits, as it did not align with the provisions of section 24-A. Consequently, the special appeals were allowed, emphasizing that the extended period of limitation did not apply in this scenario.
|
