9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 1028 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the impugned order of reassessment is barred by limitation? Held that - It is not disputed that the assessment order, in case of the petitioner, was passed on November 12, 2004, whereas, the notice for reassessment was issued within the period 5/6 months of the order of the assessment. This cannot be said to be barred by limitation, nor can it be said that the amendment has been applied retrospective. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to reassessment order based on limitation under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash a reassessment order dated June 29, 2007, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer I, arguing that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the assessment for the year 1999-2000 was finalized on November 12, 2004, and a reassessment notice was issued on April 22, 2005, under Section 16(1) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the notice was time-barred as the period for reassessment had expired on March 31, 2005, before the notice was issued. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M.U.A. Arumugaperumal and Sons, which emphasized that the amendment to Section 16(1)(a) was not retrospective and the limitation period commenced from the date of the final assessment order. The court held that since the assessment order was passed on November 12, 2004, and the reassessment notice was issued within 5-6 months of the order, it was not barred by limitation. The court distinguished previous cases where the limitation had already expired before the amendment came into force. Additionally, the petitioner cited the judgment in the case of Saba Knitters, where the court allowed a writ petition as the revisional notice issued was deemed barred by limitation. However, in the present case, the court found that the reassessment notice was issued within the permissible period as per the amended provision. The court concluded that there was no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition, stating that no grounds were made out to interfere with the impugned order. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed with no costs awarded.
|
