2023 (12) TMI 164 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Impugned notice dated 13.12.2019 issued for the assessment year 2007-2008 under the TNVAT Act - barred by limitation or not - HELD THAT - Although a faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the assessments are related to Section 22(4) of the Act. On a reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Assessing Authority has himself understood that the impugned order as having been made in exercise of the power under Section 27 of the Act, in which case the limitation of six years from the date of assessment provided under Section 27 of the Act must be reckoned from the date of deemed assessment i.e., 30.06.2012 and thus any proceeding under Section 27 of the Act must be initiated within six years thereof i.e.,30.06.2018. The impugned proceedings under Section 27 is initiated only on 30.12.2018 thus barred by limitation. An order barred by limitation is a nullity and lacking jurisdiction. The impugned notice dated 13.12.2019 is set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the impugned notice for assessment under TNVAT Act for the year 2007-2008 is barred by limitation.

Summary:
1. The petitioner argued that the notice issued on 13.12.2019 for the assessment year 2007-2008 under the TNVAT Act is beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 of the Act, which makes it a nullity as limitation relates to jurisdiction.

2. The respondent contended that the limitation for making reassessment under TNVAT Act should be reckoned from the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act), which was done on 23.12.2015, and not from the deemed assessment date of 30.06.2012.

3. The court observed that the impugned order was made under Section 27 of the Act, and the limitation of six years from the date of deemed assessment i.e., 30.06.2012 should be considered for initiating any proceeding under Section 27 of the Act.

4. As the impugned proceedings under Section 27 were initiated on 30.12.2018, which is beyond the limitation period, the court held that the order was a nullity and lacking jurisdiction, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 215.

5. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned notice dated 13.12.2019, allowed the writ petition, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.