9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed its annual return on May 19, 1992 and as per section 12(5) of the Act no assessment for the year could have been made after a period of 3 years from the said date, i.e., after May 19, 1995. Admittedly, the assessing officer had completed the assessment on April 4, 1995, i.e., within the period of limitation. But the order of assessment could be served on the petitioner only on June 3, 1995. Under these circumstances, the petitioner both before the first appellate authority as also before the Tribunal had raised a contention that since the assessment order was not served on him within the aforesaid period of limitation, therefore it should be held as time-barred and accordingly it was a nullity in the eye of law. The contention was neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sections 20, 21, 22 or 22-A or any judgment or order made by any court." On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that the bar of limitation created therein is in respect of making of assessment and not with reference to issuance or service of the assessment order. The difference between the expressions "made", "issued" or "served" is manifestly clear in the linguistic sense. It is a well-settled canon of interpretation that unless there are compelling circumstances like opting for either of the two possible meaning of a word or expression, the court should adhere to the natural meaning of the words. Therefore, in our opinion, there does not appear to be any occasion to read the word "made" as "issued" or "se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw that if the statute provides for making of an assessment within the prescribed period then, unless the order is issued within the said period, the proceedings will have to be treated as barred by limitation. With due respect we cannot subscribe to this extreme view. Any how to ascertain the facts of the case before us, we required the production of original records before us, which disclosed that though the impugned assessment order along with the consequential demand notice was issued on the very day of it making, i.e., on April 4, 1995 but it was served on the petitioner after about two and half months. On being asked for this cause of delayed service of the said demand notice and the order, Mrs. Sujatha, learned High Court Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
