2009 (3) TMI 936 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the assessment framed by the Assessing Authority on May 13, 2002 (A1) is barred by limitation under section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? Held that - The order in appeal was passed on September 9, 2005 (A4). The assesseeappellant thereafter filed two rectification applications being Misc. (Rect.) No.108 of 2005-06 and Misc. (Rect.) No. 62 of 2006-07 which were dismissed on March 21, 2006 and May 15, 2007. It appears that for the first time the question regarding limitation was raised by filing another rectification application being Misc. (Rect.) No. 12 of 2007-08 and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application by holding that the raising of such an issue in the rectification application was not covered within the scope of section 21A of the Act. It is also well-settled that question of limitation is not a pure question of law but is a mixed question of fact and law. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same does not deserve admission.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessment framed by the Assessing Authority is barred by limitation under section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948?

Detailed Analysis:
The assessee-appellant challenged the order of the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1996-97, specifically questioning the limitation of the assessment framed by the Assessing Authority under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellant contended that the assessment was time-barred as it exceeded the three-year limitation period after the last date of appearance before the Assessing Authority specified in the notice issued under section 11(2) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed multiple rectification applications by the appellant, stating that the issue of limitation was raised for the first time through rectification applications and did not fall within the scope of rectification under section 21A of the Act. The Tribunal also emphasized that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, citing relevant legal precedents to support the rejection of the appellant's plea on the limitation issue.

2. Whether the rejection of the plea on the limitation issue by the Tribunal was legally sound?

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court analyzed the Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's plea on the limitation issue and found it legally sound. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the scope of rectification under section 21A of the Act does not extend to new issues raised for the first time through rectification applications. Additionally, the Court reiterated that the question of limitation involves a mix of law and fact, which cannot be raised for the first time before the High Court. By referencing relevant judgments, the High Court affirmed that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appellant's plea on the limitation issue was in accordance with legal principles. The Court emphasized that the question of limitation had not been raised before any authority or the Tribunal earlier, further supporting the dismissal of the plea by the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject the appellant's plea on the limitation issue, emphasizing that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be raised for the first time at the High Court level. The Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant's plea did not merit admission.