2015 (4) TMI 657 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment - Bare of limitation - Revised order passed after period of 5 years - Held that - Following decision of Universal Abrasives v. Commercial Tax Officer, Manali Asessment Circle, Chennai reported in 2013 (10) TMI 440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Court has no other option except to set aside the impugned order and this Court is not inclined to remit the matter back to the authority concerned as contended by the respondent - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 regarding the assessment period.
2. Application of the amended provision increasing the limitation period to six years from the date of assessment.
3. Consideration of the principle of limitation in tax assessment cases based on relevant case law.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent under Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. The petitioner argued that the original assessment order was passed on 09.03.2011, and any revision should have been done prior to 08.03.2014 within a period of five years as per the provision at that time. The contention was based on the interpretation of Section 27(1)(a) which allows the assessing authority to determine the turnover that has escaped assessment within a specified time period.

2. The petitioner further contended that the revision order passed on 25.02.2015, beyond the initial five-year limitation, was impermissible in law. The petitioner highlighted the amendment brought by Act No.23 of 2012, which extended the limitation period to six years from the date of assessment. However, the petitioner argued that this amendment came into effect only from 19.06.2012 and cannot be applied retrospectively to an assessment period that had already lapsed. The petitioner relied on the decision in Universal Abrasives v. Commercial Tax Officer to support the argument that limitation periods should not be extended retrospectively.

3. Based on the principles established in the mentioned case law, the Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the assessment year in question had exceeded the original five-year limitation period. The Court declined to remit the matter back to the authority and instead allowed the writ petition, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the order dated 25.02.2015. The judgment reiterated the importance of adhering to limitation periods in tax assessment cases and upheld the petitioner's argument regarding the application of the amended provision within the relevant time frame.