2012 (7) TMI 862 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Period of limitation - whether in view of incorporation of sub-section (4A) to section 29 of the Act the appropriate authority under the Act had the power to extend period of limitation for framing assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 beyond November 20 2009? Held that - The answer to the abovesaid question is in the negative. On looking the matter in the backdrop of the observations it can be unmistakably held that the non obstante clause engrafted in sub-section (4A) of section 29 ibid. fetters the Commissioner from granting extension of time for framing assessment for the year 2005-06. Thus the extension granted by him has become non est in the eyes of law. The said observations of the Tribunal have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Accordingly finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab.
2. Interpretation of section 29(4) and 29(4A) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
3. Validity of the assessment framed within the statutory limitation period.
4. Applicability of the non obstante clause in sub-section 4A of section 29.

Analysis:
1. The State of Punjab filed an appeal challenging the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, regarding the assessment for the year 2005-06. The main questions of law raised were related to the sustainability of the Tribunal's order, the application of a previous judgment, and the validity of the Commissioner's actions under section 29(4) of the Act.

2. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of section 29(4) and the newly inserted sub-section 29(4A) of the Act. The dispute arose concerning the power of the appropriate authority to extend the period for framing assessments beyond the statutory limitation period, specifically for the assessment year 2005-06.

3. The State contended that the assessment framed on March 26, 2010, was within the statutory limitation period as the extension was granted by the appropriate authority. However, the respondent argued that sub-section 4A restricted the time frame for assessments for the year 2005-06, making the assessment dated March 26, 2010, invalid due to being beyond the permissible period.

4. The court analyzed the provisions of sub-section 4A and concluded that it overrides the provisions of sub-section 4, restricting the authority's power to extend the limitation period beyond November 20, 2009, for assessments related to the year 2005-06. The non obstante clause in sub-section 4A was crucial in determining the validity of the assessment and the Commissioner's authority to grant extensions.

5. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the non obstante clause in sub-section 4A constrained the Commissioner from extending the time for assessments for the year 2005-06. The extension granted by the Commissioner was deemed invalid in the eyes of the law, leading to the dismissal of the State's appeal due to the lack of merit.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal intricacies and interpretations involved in the judgment, focusing on the statutory provisions and their application to the specific case at hand.