2005 (5) TMI 624 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment order dated September 29, 1999.
2. Time-limit for rectification under Section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
3. Validity of the appellate authorities' decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Assessment Order Dated September 29, 1999:
The basic challenge in the instant petition is against the assessment order dated September 29, 1999, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-A, Guwahati, under Section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, for the period ending 1993-94. The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment order, which was by way of rectification of the original assessment order, was illegal and without any authority of law as it was passed beyond the prescribed time-limit under Section 37 of the Act.

2. Time-limit for Rectification under Section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993:
Section 37(1) of the Act allows for the rectification of an assessment order by the authority within three years from the end of the financial year in which such assessment was made. The petitioner argued that since the original order of assessment was made on January 30, 1996, any rectification by the concerned authority on its own motion under Section 37 of the Act could be made latest by March 31, 1999. As the impugned order was passed on September 29, 1999, it was beyond the prescribed time-limit and thus per se illegal and without jurisdiction.

The court noted that the legislative intention, as per the language of Section 37(1), is clear and distinct. For suo motu rectification, the rectification must be made within three years from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment was made. The court emphasized that any construction suggesting that the authority could complete the rectification process beyond the prescribed time-limit merely because the process was initiated within the period would be contrary to the mandate of the law.

3. Validity of the Appellate Authorities' Decisions:
The appellate authorities had rejected the petitioner's contention, stating that the process for rectification had been initiated within the permissible time-limit. However, the court found that the lower appellate forums had proceeded on an erroneous legal perspective. The court held that the impugned order of assessment/rectification, having breached the time-limit prescribed, could not be sustained in law and on facts. The notice dated June 4, 1997, initiating the process of rectification within the time-limit could not save the order in light of the clear legislative precept conveyed by Section 37(1) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court set aside and quashed the impugned order of assessment/rectification dated September 29, 1999, and the orders passed in the statutory appeals. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the explicit time-limits prescribed by the statute for rectification of assessment orders.