2021 (9) TMI 303 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Claim of damage (compensation) from the department for putting plaintiff (Assessee) into unnecessary litigation - Period of limitation - It is contended that, the plaintiff was put to untold hardship only because the defendants took a false stand that the order reopening the assessments was served on the plaintiff. - violation principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - No doubt, the appellant has been unnecessarily vexed by the action of the second defendant. The second defendant made a false representation before the tribunal which caused so much hardship to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was definitely justified in claiming compensation from the defendants. But the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for compensation within time - The cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 11.05.2004. The plaintiff instead of filing a suit for damages within six months from the said date chose to file writ petition followed by writ appeal and review petition. In the review petition, the plaintiff pleaded that since his writ appeal was dismissed by granting him liberty to work out his remedy before the civil Court, it should be clarified that the same would be a common law remedy dehors Section 49 and 50 of the TNGST Act. By invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the bar of limitation could be overcome. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which is unable to entertain it - Whenever a person bonafide prosecutes with due diligence another proceeding which proves to be abortive and no decision could be rendered on merits, the time taken in such proceeding ought to be excluded as otherwise the person who has approached the Court in such proceeding would be penalized for no fault of his own. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MP. STEEL CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT however clarified that the period prior to the initiation of any abortive proceeding cannot be excluded for the simple reason that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not enable the litigant to get a benefit beyond what is contemplated by the section- that is to put the litigant in the same position as if the abortive proceeding had never taken place. In the case on hand, the limitation period was six months. The cause of action commenced on 11.05.2004 when the appellate authority allowed the plaintiff's statutory appeal. Limitation began to run from the said date - Writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would fall within the expression civil proceeding occurring in Section 14 of the Limitation Act. But the plaintiff herein filed W.P.(MD)No.1872 of 2005 only on 09.03.2005. By then, the limitation prescribed by Section 50 of the TNGST Act had already expired. Invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be of no avail. That is why, the plaintiff filed Review Application No.50 of 2007 and pleaded for grant of appropriate liberty which would help him to surmount the himalayan barrier erected by the said provision. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not grant any such relief. The result of applying the limitation bar contained in Section 50 of TNGST Act has operated very harshly on the appellant - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of demand notice and assessment order.
2. Nonservice of assessment order and subsequent legal proceedings.
3. Claim for damages and compensation.
4. Application of limitation period under TNGST Act, 1959.
5. Invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis:

1. The plaintiff, a partnership firm, challenged a demand notice and nil assessment order issued by the second defendant. The plaintiff contended that the assessments were reopened without proper service of the order. Legal proceedings ensued, including appeals and writ petitions up to the Supreme Court, resulting in the appellate authority setting aside the levy of sales tax.

2. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded damages through a legal notice, questioning the basis of the assessment order service claim. Despite various legal actions, including a writ petition and review applications, the plaintiff's claims for compensation were dismissed by the court.

3. The present suit sought damages of ?15,00,000 with interest, based on the hardships faced due to the defendants' actions. The plaintiff argued that the defendants should compensate for the undue hardship caused by the false representation regarding the service of the assessment order.

4. The court analyzed the application of the limitation period under Section 50 of the TNGST Act, 1959, which requires suits against the government to be filed within six months from the date of the act complained of. The cause of action for damages arose on 11.05.2004, and the plaintiff failed to file a suit within the prescribed time, leading to the dismissal of the claim.

5. The court deliberated on the invocation of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to overcome the bar of limitation. While recognizing the principles of justice underlying Section 14, the court concluded that the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit within the statutory period rendered the claim time-barred, despite attempts to seek relief through writ proceedings and review applications.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision that the suit was time-barred under Section 50 of the TNGST Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in legal actions.