9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 697 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the impugned orders of assessment dated October 17, 2012 of the first respondent are barred by limitation having been initiated by show-cause notices dated August 17, 2012 more than four years (prescribed under section 21(3) of the Act for making assessment) from the due date of return or the date of filing of the return, whichever is later or are within limitation prescribed under section 37 of the Act? Held that - Since the first respondent was issued a separate authorization for regular assessment by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad on August 6, 2012 and pursuant to the said authorization, the first respondent issued show-cause notices dated August 17, 2012 and passed the impugned orders of assessment on October 17, 2012, which is within three years from June 13, 2011 (date of passing of orders by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner), we are of the view that the orders of the first respondent are within the time permitted by section 37 of the Act. Therefore the impugned orders of assessment cannot be challenged on the said ground. We therefore hold that the first respondent had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders of assessment dated October 17, 2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the said orders are not barred by limitation. However, on the merits we do not propose to express any opinion. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned assessment orders dated October 17, 2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by way of appeal before the competent appellate authority under the Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority. 2. Limitation period for assessment. 3. Validity of the assessment orders on merits. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority: The petitioner, a public joint stock company, contested that the initial assessment orders dated August 18, 2009, were passed without proper authorization, as the first respondent was only authorized to conduct an audit, not an assessment. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) agreed, setting aside the assessment orders on June 13, 2011, based on the precedent in *Sri Balaji Flour Mills v. Commercial Tax Officer II, Chittoor*. The appellate authority directed the second respondent to obtain proper authorization from the Deputy Commissioner for any further steps. Consequently, the first respondent obtained the required authorization on August 6, 2012, before issuing new assessment orders on October 17, 2012. 2. Limitation Period for Assessment: The core issue was whether the new assessment orders were barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which mandates a four-year period from the due date of the return or the date of filing of the return, whichever is later. The petitioner argued that the new assessments were time-barred. However, the court determined that Section 37, which allows a three-year period from the date of receipt of the appellate order for reassessment, was applicable. Since the new assessments were initiated within this three-year period following the appellate order dated June 13, 2011, the court held that the assessments were within the permissible time frame. 3. Validity of the Assessment Orders on Merits: The petitioner also challenged the assessment orders on their merits, but the court refrained from expressing any opinion on this aspect. The court clarified that the petitioner retains the right to appeal the merits of the assessment orders before the competent appellate authority under the Act. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the jurisdiction and timing of the new assessment orders dated October 17, 2012, for the tax periods 2006-07 and 2007-08. The court concluded that the assessments were validly conducted within the limitation period prescribed under Section 37 of the Act, following proper authorization. The petitioner was advised to pursue any further grievances regarding the merits of the assessments through the appropriate appellate channels.
|
