2015 (1) TMI 1403 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reassessment of Turnover under CST Act - time limitation - Section 6 (7) of the CST Act - according to petitioner, Ext.P3 notice ought to have been issued within 4 years from the end of the year to which the assessment related - Held that - The issue of limitation raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is covered in his favour by Ext.P5 judgment that is produced in the writ petition - petition is allowed on the issue of limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice issued under Section 6 (7) of the CST Act for reassessment of turnover for the assessment year 2005-2006. Issue of limitation regarding the timing of the notice issuance.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Notice under Section 6 (7) of the CST Act:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 6 (7) of the Central Sales Tax Act for reassessment of turnover for the assessment year 2005-2006, even though the notice erroneously stated it was issued under Section 6 (5) of the CST Act. The initial assessment of the petitioner for the said assessment year was completed under Section 6 (5) of the CST Act on 01.10.2011. The petitioner contended that the notice ought to have been issued within 4 years from the end of the relevant year. As the notice was dated 26.02.2014, beyond the expiration of the limitation period, the petitioner argued that it was barred by the express provision of limitation contained in Section 6 (7) of the CST Act.

2. Judicial Consideration and Decision on Limitation Issue:
The court considered the issue of limitation raised by the petitioner and found it covered in the petitioner's favor by Ext.P5 judgment presented in the writ petition. Additionally, a Division Bench of the High Court, in an appeal by the State against the said judgment, affirmed the decision of the Single Judge. Despite the State's intention to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench judgment, the court held that the issue of limitation urged by the petitioner in the writ petition was already decided in his favor. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition on the issue of limitation based on the previous decisions of the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, ruled in favor of the petitioner on the issue of limitation regarding the notice issued under Section 6 (7) of the CST Act for reassessment of turnover for the assessment year 2005-2006. The court based its decision on previous judgments that supported the petitioner's contention that the notice was time-barred according to the provisions of Section 6 (7) of the CST Act.