2015 (4) TMI 459 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - having taken note of Section 49(2) of the Act clearly the order of the Tribunal having been passed on 2.5.2009 in terms of the extended period of limitation granted under the said provision the period of limitation expired on 1.5.2013. Consequently any notice for assessment under Section 43 of the Act made thereafter cannot save the power or authority for assessment once it becomes barred by the law of limitation. We are therefore of the considered view that the writ application ought to be allowed and the notice under Annexure-4 having been issued beyond the period of limitation and that too not in statutory Form 307 is non-est in the eyes of law. We order accordingly and direct refund of any amount that may be due to the petitioner along with the statutory interest as may be applicable in terms of Section 59 of the Act within a period of three months - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Refund of amount due to the petitioner for a specific period.
2. Challenge of assessment order before the Sales Tax Tribunal.
3. Issuance of notice for assessment under Section 43 of the Act.
4. Interpretation and application of Section 49 of the OVAT Act, 2004.
5. Competence of the Assessing Authority for assessment under the Act.
6. Compliance with the direction issued by the Sales Tax Tribunal.
7. Application of the period of limitation for assessment and reassessment.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a refund of the amount due for a specific period as per the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner challenged the assessment order before the Tribunal, which was subsequently allowed, directing reassessment by the appropriate authority after proper notice and hearing. Despite the Tribunal's order, no notice was issued by the Assessing Officer, leading to the petition for refund.

2. The petitioner relied on Section 49 of the OVAT Act, emphasizing the authority for reassessment within a specified period from the date of the Tribunal's order. The petitioner argued that the period for reassessment had lapsed as per the statutory limitation, justifying the refund claim along with interest under Section 59 of the Act.

3. The Standing Counsel for the Commercial Tax Department contended that the Tribunal's order did not address the merits of the case but focused on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. He acknowledged the lack of jurisdiction at the time of assessment due to rule amendments and subsequent competence granted to the Assessing Officer.

4. The Court analyzed Section 49(2) of the Act and determined that the period for reassessment had expired as per the statutory limitation, rendering any notice for assessment beyond the limitation period non-binding. The Court held that the notice issued post-limitation was not in compliance with the law and ordered the refund of the amount due to the petitioner with applicable interest within a specified timeframe.

5. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for assessment and reassessment under the Act. The judgment clarified the implications of the limitation period on the authority of the Assessing Officer and highlighted the necessity for compliance with procedural requirements for assessment notices.

6. In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ application, directing the refund of the amount due to the petitioner along with statutory interest. The judgment underscored the significance of adherence to legal provisions and timelines in tax assessment matters, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.

← Previous Next →