2015 (9) TMI 1457 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed beyond three years for A.Y. 2005-06 is sustainable in law? - the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and another v. M/s Des Raj Bhim Sain 2012 (7) TMI 862 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - the present appeal is allowed and is disposed of in the same terms as in M/s Des Raj Bhim Sain s case (supra).

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal.
2. Sustainability of assessment order passed beyond three years for A.Y. 2005-06.
3. Compliance with the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court.
4. Applicability of the principle of merger.
5. Effect of an appeal raising the question of limitation becoming infructuous.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed returns for the assessment year 2005-06, and the assessing authority finalized the assessment, creating a demand. The appellant challenged the assessment order on merits and being time-barred before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). The DETC (A) remanded the case with regard to merits only, not adjudicating on the issue of limitation. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal. During the appeal's pendency, the assessing authority passed a new assessment order, creating a demand. The appellant filed an appeal against this order without pre-deposit, which was dismissed for non-deposit. Another appeal was filed challenging the vires of a specific section of the Act. The Tribunal later dismissed the appeal against the DETC (A) order, rendering it infructuous.

2. The main issue considered by the court was whether the assessment for the year 2005-06 beyond three years was valid. The parties agreed that this issue was settled by a previous decision of the High Court. The court noted that the issue raised in the present appeal was no longer open for debate and was concluded by the earlier decision. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and disposed of it in line with the previous decision.

3. The judgment did not delve into the other substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, such as the Tribunal's failure to follow a binding decision or the applicability of the principle of merger. The focus remained on the question of limitation in framing the assessment beyond the prescribed period.

4. The court's decision was based on the settled legal position as per the previous judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents. The court's decision to dispose of the appeal in line with the earlier ruling highlights the significance of consistency and precedent in legal proceedings.

5. Overall, the judgment primarily addressed the issue of the validity of the assessment order beyond the stipulated timeframe, highlighting the importance of legal precedents and established principles in resolving such matters. The court's reliance on previous decisions underscores the significance of legal consistency and adherence to established legal principles in the judicial process.