2022 (9) TMI 999 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - concessional rate of tax - computation of the turnover refers to Form 'C' - time limitation - Section 18 of Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT - Section 18 sets out a limitation of five years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates, for assessment of escaped turnover. Thus, for determination of the turnover that has allegedly escaped assessment for the period 2003-04, the period of five years would expire by 31.03.2009 whereas the impugned notice has been issued only on 04.12.2020. The re-computation of turnover under notice dated 04.12.2020 and the consequent denial of exemption under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act are set aside - the purpose of re-determination of the turnover and denial of exemption is only to proceed as aginst the petitioner under the provisions of Section 49 of the Act which provides for offences and penalties as well as the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act providing for penalties. Section 468(2) sets out the periods of limitation, based on the category of punishment to be imposed, as six months, one year or three years, in the case of offences punishable with (i) fine (ii) imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or (iii) imprisonment a for term within one month but less than three years, respectively - The critical word used therein is offence that postulates that the escapement of turnover ought to have been determined , and validly so, as a pre-condition for the limitation under Section 468(2) to stand triggered. Such determination of escapement of turnover, ought to have been made within the time period set out under Section 18 of the Act which has not been done in this case. The impugned notice is thus, also mis-conceived as it proceeds to contemplate a criminal liability in respect of an offence that is incapable of determination, being barred by law. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to notice dated 04.12.2020 under the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967.
2. Validity of re-computation of turnover and denial of exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Revision of assessment order dated 10.08.2007.
4. Legality of the notice issued after the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act.
5. Interpretation of Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding the period of limitation for offences.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested a notice dated 04.12.2020 concerning the period 2003-2004 under the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. The original assessment order dated 10.08.2007 confirmed the accounts and turnover reported, including the claim of concessional tax rate supported by Form 'C'. However, the respondents later questioned the authenticity of the 'C' forms submitted during the original assessment, leading to the impugned notice in December 2020. The notice sought to revise the turnover, deny exemption claimed, and collect differential tax with interest, contravening the limitation period under Section 18 of the Act, which expired in 2009, while the notice was issued in 2020.

The notice alleged fraudulent correction of 'C' forms by the petitioner to claim tax exemption, proposing a substantial tax amount along with interest. The court found the officer's actions to revise the original assessment and recompute turnover after eleven years impermissible and beyond the statutory limitation period. The court emphasized that the re-determination of turnover and denial of exemption were set aside due to legal irregularities and misinterpretations of the law.

The respondents argued that the purpose of the turnover re-determination was to proceed against the petitioner under Section 49 of the Act, which deals with penalties for offences. They referred to Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlining limitation periods for various offences based on the severity of punishment. However, the court noted that the notice's premise of criminal liability was flawed as the determination of turnover escapement required by Section 468(2) was not validly made within the prescribed time limit under Section 18 of the Act, rendering the notice legally untenable.

Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notice, allowed the Writ Petition, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition, highlighting the absence of costs. The judgment clarified the legal constraints on revising assessments, statutory limitation periods, and the interplay between tax laws and criminal liability provisions, ensuring adherence to legal principles and due process in tax matters.