2018 (9) TMI 809 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time limit for passing Order of Assessment - Order of Assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year - levy of purchase tax on Sugarcane - Held that - Assessments in the cases of different assessees for different assessment years in bunch of appeals were framed much after 5 years after the last date for filing of return. For none of the assessment years in bunch of appeals under consideration, writ petitions were pending in this court, which were disposed off - Hence, there was no interim stay. The plea sought to be raised by learned counsel for the State was that in view of the pendency of matters before Hon ble the Supreme Court and this Court pertaining to the legal issue regarding taxability of sugarcane purchased by the sugar mills from the farmers, the assessment proceedings were kept pending on the request of assessees, however, nothing was pointed out from the record in support thereof, therefore, rejected. No substantial questions of law arise in the present appeals, as the issues have been decided by the Tribunal while rightly appreciating the facts and the legal issues involved - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sustainability of the Tribunal's order.
2. Applicability of the judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. case.
3. Applicability of the 2010 judgment to cases decided before its pronouncement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustainability of the Tribunal's Order:

The primary issue was whether the Tribunal's order was legally sustainable. The Tribunal had set aside the assessment orders based on the judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. case, which held that assessments must be completed within a reasonable period, typically not exceeding five years.

In multiple cases, the assessments were framed significantly after the five-year period. The Tribunal, referring to the judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd., found the delayed assessments unsustainable. The State argued that there was no prescribed time limit for assessments before the 1998 amendment and that exceptional circumstances justified the delays. However, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances justifying the delays beyond five years, thus setting aside the assessments.

2. Applicability of the Judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. Case:

The Tribunal relied on the judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd., which established that assessments should be completed within five years if no specific period is prescribed. The State contended that this judgment should not apply retrospectively to cases decided before its pronouncement. However, the Tribunal applied the principle of reasonable time, as established in the Subh Timb Steel Ltd. case, to set aside the delayed assessments.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on the Subh Timb Steel Ltd. judgment, affirming that assessments completed beyond five years were unsustainable. The High Court noted that procedural laws, including those prescribing time limits, apply to pending cases unless explicitly stated otherwise.

3. Applicability of the 2010 Judgment to Preceding Cases:

The State argued that the 2010 judgment in M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd., which prescribed a five-year limit for assessments, should not apply to cases decided before its pronouncement. The High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that procedural laws apply to ongoing cases. The Court noted that the principle of completing assessments within a reasonable period, typically five years, was a procedural guideline that could be applied retrospectively.

The High Court found that the Tribunal correctly applied the principle of reasonable time to the cases at hand, even though the assessments were framed before the 2010 judgment. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the delayed assessments was consistent with the established legal principles.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's orders. The Court held that the assessments were unsustainable as they were completed beyond the reasonable period of five years, as established in the M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. case. The Court emphasized that procedural laws, including time limits for assessments, apply to pending cases, and no exceptional circumstances justified the delays in the present cases.