Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (10) TMI 448 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax


Issues:
1. Whether the VATTribunal was justified in applying the ratio of a previous judgment when facts were distinguishable?
2. Whether the VATTribunal needed to consider the respondent's objection to the notice and submission to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority?

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the VAT Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1997-98, raising questions of law regarding the application of a previous judgment. The respondent, engaged in sugar mill operations, contested the additional demand created by the Assessing Authority. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner affirmed the order, leading the respondent to appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, citing the Emkay Industries case, held the assessment was barred by limitation under section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The High Court found the assessment order passed on August 22, 2003, to be beyond the limitation period set by the amended law, similar to the Emkay Industries case, thus dismissing the appeal.

2. The High Court considered the amended section 11 of the 1948 Act, which imposed a three-year limitation on assessments from March 3, 1998. Referring to the Emkay Industries case, the Court emphasized the substantive right of an assessee to have assessments finalized within the prescribed time limit. As the assessment order in this case was passed on August 22, 2003, exceeding the deadline of April 30, 2001, the Court concluded that the assessment was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in this matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates