9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 131 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - time limitation - Held that - considering the fact that the plea of limitation is a technical plea and a legal plea and it could be raised at any stage of the proceedings and this Court also is entitled to look into the said plea, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be shut out without any remedy with regard to such plea, as the plea of limitation if found to be correct, will go to the root of the matter - the respondent shall examine the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to assessment order on grounds of limitation and validity of best judgment assessment. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, challenged a revisional assessment order on the basis that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that the notice for revision was issued beyond the six-year period from the initial assessment date. The petitioner contended that the subsequent revisional notice was invalid as it replaced a previous Best Judgment Assessment, contrary to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' clarification. However, the petitioner failed to raise the limitation issue in their objections to the revision notice, leading the court to rule that the respondent could not be faulted for deciding the matter on merits. The court acknowledged that the plea of limitation could be raised at any stage and decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act to address the limitation issue. The court declined to set aside the assessment order due to the petitioner's failure to raise the limitation plea in their objections. Instead, the court allowed the petitioner to file a petition under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act within one week to address the limitation issue. The respondent was directed to consider the petition and pass a speaking order after providing the petitioner with a personal hearing. The court instructed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner for tax recovery until the petition under Section 84 was decided. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
