9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxService of notice - time limitation - Escaped assessment of tax - escaped turnover - stand of the respondent is that the surprise inspection held in the business premises of the petitioner revealed certain suppressions - Section 27 (1) (a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 - HELD THAT - The stand of the learned Special Government Pleader is that since the surprise inspection took place in the year 2016, this Court ought not to compute the limitation period from 30.06.2012. I am not able to agree. Even according to the respondent, the inspection took place in the year 2015; nothing stopped the respondent from taking action for assessing the escaped turnover immediately thereafter. Even if the respondent had taken action in the year 2016-2017 that would have been within the limitation period. Not having done so, the issuance of notice on 28.08.2018 after the expiry of six years limitation period, is not justifiable. The impugned proceedings in this Writ Petition stands quashed only on the ground of limitation - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 regarding the limitation period for assessing escaped turnover. Analysis: The petitioner, a Builder and assessee with the respondent, challenged the assessment order for the year 2010-2011. The respondent alleged suppressed turnover based on a surprise inspection, leading to a notice issued on 28.08.2018 and an order on 06.11.2019. The petitioner argued that under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment should have been within the limitation period. The petitioner contended that the limitation was five years, but even if it was six years, the notice was issued after the deadline of 30.06.2018, the cut-off date being 30.06.2012. The Special Government Pleader argued that the inspection was in 2016, not 2015, and thus the limitation period should not be calculated from 30.06.2012. However, the court disagreed, stating that the respondent could have taken action immediately after the inspection in 2015 or 2016-2017 to stay within the limitation period. Since the notice was issued on 28.08.2018, after the expiry of the six-year limitation period, the court found the proceedings unjustifiable and quashed them solely on the ground of limitation. In conclusion, the court allowed the Writ Petition, with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
|
