9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1884 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxTime limitation for completion of assessment - period had already expired when the extension for time to complete the assessment was sought for - petitioner contended that the assessment under the Act is required to be done within six months after service of notice which has not been done and the extension of time which was sought for after expiry of six months - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the provision under sub-section (6) of section 42 of the OVAT Act including the proviso, it can be safely said that the period had already expired when the extension for time to complete the assessment was sought for. The same was done much after six months of expiry of the period of limitation in January, 2017 but the extension is sought for in March, 2017. The issue is squarely covered by the ratio in the case of State of Punjab v. Shreyans Indus Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the honourable Supreme Court that here would be no question of extending the time for assessment when the assessment has already become time barred. A valuable right has also accrued in favour of the assessee when the period of limitation expires. The orders of assessment involved in each of the writ petition are without jurisdiction - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the assessment order dated May 31, 2017. 2. Limitation period for completing the assessment. 3. Extension of time for assessment. 4. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Shreyans Indus Ltd. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Assessment Order: The petitioners challenged the action of the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Angul Range, Angul, in passing the assessment order dated May 31, 2017. The primary contention was that the assessment was not completed within the stipulated time frame as mandated by the OVAT Act. 2. Limitation Period for Completing the Assessment: The petitioners argued that, as per the OVAT Act, the assessment should be completed within six months from the date of service of notice. In this case, the notice was served on July 28, 2016, and the six-month period expired on January 27, 2017. However, the assessment order was passed on May 31, 2017, which was beyond the stipulated period. 3. Extension of Time for Assessment: The petitioners contended that the extension of time for completing the assessment was sought after the expiration of the six-month period. The request for extension was made on March 10, 2017, and the extension was granted on March 29, 2017. The petitioners argued that this extension was invalid as it was sought after the original limitation period had expired. The court examined the provisions of sections 41 and 42 of the OVAT Act, particularly section 42(6), which states that an assessment must be completed within six months from the date of service of notice, with a possible extension of up to six months if allowed by the Commissioner. However, this extension must be sought within the original six-month period. 4. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in State of Punjab v. Shreyans Indus Ltd.: The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Shreyans Indus Ltd., which held that the power to extend the period of limitation must be exercised before the original period expires. The Supreme Court emphasized that once the limitation period expires, the right to make an assessment is extinguished, and any extension granted after this period is invalid. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the extension of time for completing the assessment in the present case was sought after the expiration of the original limitation period, rendering the assessment order without jurisdiction. Conclusion: The court held that the assessment orders involved in the writ petitions were without jurisdiction due to the invalid extension of the limitation period. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the assessment orders were quashed. The court did not consider any other contentions as the petitioners succeeded on the primary issue of limitation.
|
