9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has rightly rejected the application by holding that the raising of such an issue in the rectification application was not covered within the scope of section 21A of the Act. It is also well-settled that question of limitation is not a pure question of law but is a mixed question of fact and law. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same does not deserve admission. - VAT No. 69 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2009 - KUMAR M.M. AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by M.M. KUMAR J. The assessee-appellant has approached this court by filing the instant appeal under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 challenging order dated November 20, 2007 (A6) passed in Misc. (Rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee-appellant during the assessment year 199697 was Rs. 6,11,76,441.15. It was claimed that there was no tax payable by the appellant-company. However, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, respondent No. 3, issued a notice in form ST-XIV under section 11(2) of the Act for framing assessment in respect of the assessee-appellant company. The assessee-appellant is stated to have attended the proceedings through its counsel and furnished 148 ST-XII form in support of its claim for sale to registered dealers of the State of Punjab along with 39 bills of lading in support of its claim that the goods were exported out of India. The documents were taken on record by the Assessing Authority. The assessment was finalized on May 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the first rectification application were adjudicated and the appellant failed to point out any mistake apparent on the face of the record legal or factual which required rectification. The assessee-appellant again filed another Misc. (Rect.) No. 12 of 2007-08 under section 21A of the Act with a prayer seeking rectification of the order dated May 15, 2007. However, the same was again dismissed by the Tribunal on November 20, 2007. It is pertinent to notice that the assessee-appellant made an attempt to raise the issue of limitation and the plea was rejected with the following observations: I have considered arguments of both the parties and have gone through the facts of the case. The issue of limitation now raised by the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not within the period of limitation as provided by section 11(4) of the Act does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court in the cases of T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50; [1971] 2 SCC 526 and State of Karnataka v. K.K. Mohandas [2007] 6 SCC 484. Even otherwise we are of the considered view that the question of limitation at best is a mixed question of law and fact. Such a question cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time before the High Court. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey AIR 1964 SC 907, Gurbachan Singh Gill v. J.S. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
