2014 (7) TMI 968 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Bar of limitation - Held that - Limitation prescribed under section 39 is as to the making of the assessment and not to initiation thereof. The observation of the revisional authority that made did not mean completed or signed can not be accepted. The same is contrary to the plain meaning of the expres sion made - section 18(1) provides for limitation for initiating the reassessment while section 19(2) prescribes limitation for completing the assessment. In the present case, it is clear that completion of reassessment, i.e., passing of the order of reassessment is beyond the limitation prescribed under section 19(2) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of assessment order dated July 13, 2012, as affirmed by the revisional authority vide order dated August 12, 2013 under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 due to limitation issues.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the assessment order dated July 13, 2012, which was affirmed by the revisional authority on August 12, 2013, citing that the assessment for the year 2005-06 should have been completed by March 31, 2011, as per the statutory five-year limitation under Section 39 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The revisional authority contended that as long as the assessment proceedings were initiated within the five-year period, any subsequent time taken to pass the assessment order should not render it time-barred. The court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the limitation is about the "making" of the assessment, not just its initiation. The court also referred to a previous judgment to support this distinction between initiating reassessment and completing assessment.

The court found the revisional authority's interpretation unsustainable, clarifying that the limitation under Section 39 pertains to the "making" of the assessment, contrary to the authority's view that "made" did not mean "completed" or "signed." The court highlighted the distinction between initiating reassessment and completing assessment, citing a previous case to support its position. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that the revisional authority's view was inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the petitioner based on the statutory interpretation of the limitation provision under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.