9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 893 - HC - VAT and Sales Taxwhen the revised assessment order was clearly barred by limitation it is a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: Challenging pre-revision notice as barred by limitation under TNGST Act.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner contested a pre-revision notice issued by the respondent under TNGST Act for the assessment year 2000-2001, claiming it was beyond the five-year limitation period. The initial assessment order was passed on December 28, 2001, which was subsequently revised on December 26, 2003. The respondent issued a revision notice on June 28, 2006, proposing to assess a taxable turnover that was previously exempted. The petitioner argued that the pre-revision notice issued on January 8, 2008, was time-barred, as the limitation expired on March 31, 2006. 2. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act, which allows for the assessment of escaped turnover within five years from the expiry of the relevant year. The respondent justified the pre-revision notice by referring to an amendment in 2002, which altered the calculation of the limitation period. However, the court held that the amendment did not apply retrospectively, and since the assessment order was issued before the amendment came into effect, the pre-revision notice was indeed barred by limitation. 3. The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not preclude the writ jurisdiction if the order lacks jurisdiction or is statutorily barred by limitation. Citing previous judgments, the court reinforced that when a revised assessment order is clearly time-barred, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The court also distinguished a case where the amended provision was applied due to the assessment order being issued after the amendment came into force. 4. Ultimately, the court concluded that the pre-revision notice dated January 8, 2008, was indeed barred by limitation under Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act. Consequently, the notice was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
