9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 882 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - barred by limitation under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act 1990 or not - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Court in M/S. SRI BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORT VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI. 2003 (9) TMI 827 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that when express provision is not there then the authority is not having power to impose. Infact in other taxing statues like Income Tax Act there are provisions to take action if the assessee has not filed any return. The income tax authorities are empowered to take action, impose interest and to impose penalty, if returns are not filed. Such provisions are not available in the Entry Tax Act. The Act is silent in case if return not filed. The Act is not empowering the authorities to take action for not filing returns. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Balakrishna s case has more precedential value. This Court is of the considered opinion that the three years limitation is applicable, even if return is not filed. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed - the writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Limitation under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. 2. Jurisdiction of the respondent to assess and impose penalties without filing returns. 3. Validity of the impugned orders based on precedents. Issue-wise Summary: 1. Limitation under Section 8(5): The petitioner contended that the order dated 21.07.2022 was barred by limitation under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. The vehicle was purchased in 2007, and the three-year limitation period expired on 30.04.2011. The respondent issued a pre-assessment notice on 19.08.2019, which was beyond the prescribed period. The court noted that the relevant portion of Section 8(5) states, "No order of assessment under sub-section (3) or (4) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing of returns of the particular period." 2. Jurisdiction of the respondent to assess and impose penalties without filing returns: The petitioner argued that even if returns were not filed, the limitation period remains three years from the date of purchase. The court referred to the judgment in Sri Balakrishna Transport Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, which held, "When the Act does not make a specific provision for assessment of an importer, who failed to furnish the return under Section 7, it was not within the powers of the assessing authority to assess the importer long after the import made by him." The court also cited similar judgments in M/s. Vishnu Enterprises and W.A.(MD)No.332 of 2007, reinforcing that there is no provision for assessing a person who fails to furnish returns under Section 7 of the Act. 3. Validity of the impugned orders based on precedents: The court examined the respondent's argument that the limitation period should be calculated from the date the purchase was brought to their knowledge, supported by the Gujarat High Court's judgment in M.H.Khanusiya Vs State of Gujarat. However, the court favored the Balakrishna case, emphasizing, "It is trite that in case the words used in a taxation statute are plain and unambiguous they have to be interpreted in such a manner so as to give full effect to the wording of the statute." The court concluded that the Balakrishna case has more precedential value and binding precedent. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order, holding that the three-year limitation is applicable even if returns are not filed. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
