2010 (5) TMI 769 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Since no notice was issued to the assessee so the order (annexure P2) passed by the revisional authority after more than five years is time-barred illegal and not binding on it (assessee) is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well? Held that - There is no illegality in the impugned order of the revisional authority because notice was issued and Sanjiv Kumar accountant of the assessee was duly served on May 6 1998 i.e. within five years of passing the assessment order. Consequently the questions of law are accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment order by the revisional authority.
2. Validity of the order passed by the revisional authority.
3. Time limitation for passing the revisional order.
4. Service of notice to the assessee.
5. Legality of the impugned order.
6. Appeal against the assessment order.
7. Setting aside of the second assessment order.
8. Infructuous nature of the revision petitions.

Revision of assessment order by the revisional authority:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, submitted its return for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Authority passed the final order on May 31, 1993. The revisional authority, under section 21 of the Act, issued a notice to the assessee for revising the assessment order. Despite the notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, leading to the revisional authority revising the assessment order and remanding the case to the Assessing Authority for re-determination of tax liability. The assessee filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed by the Chairman, Value Added Tax, Punjab. The present revision petitions were admitted to consider substantial questions of law regarding the revisional order passed by the revisional authority.

Validity of the order passed by the revisional authority:
The main argument raised was that the order passed by the revisional authority after more than five years is time-barred, illegal, and not binding on the assessee due to the absence of a notice. However, it was established that no period of limitation was prescribed for deciding/passing the order of assessment by the revisional authority during the relevant assessment year. The notice was duly served upon the accountant/representative of the firm within five years of passing the original assessment order. Therefore, the revisional authority did not pass the order without issuing notice after five years, as argued by the assessee. The impugned order of the revisional authority was deemed legal and valid.

Time limitation for passing the revisional order:
The absence of a prescribed period of limitation for passing the order of assessment by the revisional authority during the relevant assessment year was a crucial factor in determining the legality of the revisional order. Since the notice was served within five years of the original assessment order, the argument of the order being time-barred was dismissed.

Service of notice to the assessee:
The notice regarding the revision of the assessment order was served upon the accountant/representative of the firm within the specified time frame of five years from the original assessment order. This service of notice was crucial in establishing the legality and validity of the revisional order passed by the authority.

Legality of the impugned order:
After thorough consideration and examination of the arguments presented, the court concluded that there was no illegality in the impugned order of the revisional authority. The notice was duly served within the stipulated time frame, making the order legally binding and valid.

Appeal against the assessment order:
Following the remand of the case, the Assessing Authority re-determined the tax liability of the assessee. An appeal was filed against the second assessment order, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the second assessment order to allow the assessee an opportunity to satisfy the sales against specific forms. This action rendered the present revision petitions against the same order infructuous, as no relief could be granted to the assessee.

Setting aside of the second assessment order:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the second assessment order, which was a result of the earlier remand passed by the revisional authority, played a significant role in determining the outcome of the revision petitions. The setting aside of the second assessment order made the revision petitions irrelevant and without merit.

Infructuous nature of the revision petitions:
Considering all the aspects and angles of the case, the court found no merit in the revision petitions and subsequently dismissed them with no order as to costs. The setting aside of the second assessment order and the actions taken by the Tribunal rendered the revision petitions infructuous and unable to provide any relief to the assessee.