9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... always proceed to exercise its statutory function. There is a general exposition of law that limitation once expired will not revive, but that will have no application to the present case inasmuch it is not a case of revival of limitation, but prescription of limitation in a different manner. It has the effect of providing a longer period of limitation by amendment in the Statute. Since the validity of U.P. Act No. 11 of 1997 is not under challenge, in my view, the question of limitation in the case in hand in respect of Assessment Years in dispute has to be examined by simply going through Section 21 (2) as has been substituted in the Statute by U.P. Act, No. 11 of 1997 and if it is considered from the said angle, it is difficult to hold that the order of assessment passed on 30.03.1998 are barred by time. - Decided against assessee. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 564 of 2001, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 565 of 2001, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 566 of 2001, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 567 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2014 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,JJ. For the Applicant : Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER 1. Heard Sri Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3 to the petition) within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the review application is produced before respondent no. 2 by the petitioner who undertakes to produce the same within a week from today. Further proceedings for the consecutive assessment years 1989-90 to 1992-93 bothy under U.P. and Central Sales Tax Acts will remain stayed for a period of two months, if steps as aforesaid. 6. Despite direction of this Court, Divisional Level Committee did not decide review application within the period of six weeks. 7. In the meantime, Assessing Authority sought to complete assessment for the year 1990-91, (Provincial and Central both), since period of two months for which assessment was stayed by this Court, lapsed in December, 1993 itself. In the circumstances, another Writ Petition No. 374 (Tax) of 1995 was filed. This Court by interim order dated 07.03.1995 stayed assessment proceedings for 1990-91 (Provincial and Central both) and directed Divisional Level Committee to decide review application within two months vide order dated 07.03.1995. 8. Ultimately Divisional Level Committee decided review vide order dated 16.02.1996. It ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of assessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after expiration of four years from the end of such year. Provided that the assessment for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 may be made up to March 31st 1982. 16. By U.P. Sales Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982, U.P. Act No. 4 of 1982, sub-section (2) of Section 21 was substituted and was given deeming effect from 01.11.1978. the substituted provision reads as under: 21(2). Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no order of assessment or reassessment, under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after expiration of four years from the end of such year. Provided that assessment or reassessment for the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 may be made by 31st March 1982. (emphasis added) 17. Next amendment came by U.P. Act No. 8 of 1992 w.e.f. 01.01.1992 and sub-section (2) of Section 21 as substituted then, reads as under: 21(2). Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no order of assessment or reassessment, under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after expiration of four years from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by time permitted the same to be completed by Assessing Authority by a particular date. 23. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of Act, 1948, as it was prior to amendment by Act, 1982 shows that the period of limitation was prescribed only in respect of order of assessment (not reassessment) but then for the Assessment Years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for which limitation expired on 31.3.1980, Legislature permitted the same to be completed by 31.3.1982 vide proviso thereto. 24. Then it was substituted by U.P. Act, No. 4 of 1982 with effect from 1.11.1978. The major change in Sub-section (2) is that besides the order of assessment , it also talked of order of re-assessment . Meaning thereby, earlier for the order of re-assessment, the aforesaid provision did not contemplate any limitation but now it was provided similar to that of order of assessment. Then again, I find that by virtue of proviso, limitation of four years which expired in respect of certain specific years, i.e., 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 on 31.3.1981, was extended till 31.3.1982. 25. In fact, the Statute has not extended period of limitation but separate period has been prescribed in respect of Assessments Yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not, it contemplates that assessment and re-assessment orders can be passed upto 31.3.1998. 29. The right conferred or derived by a Statute providing limitation is statutory right. If it is taken away by an amendment in the Statute, unless its validity is challenged and it is struck down, the same has to be looked into in the light of the Statute itself. 30. Even otherwise, in the matter of limitation, it is said that the limitation only deprives the remedy and not the right. When a limitation expires in the matter of assessment etc. it would deprive Assessing Authority to pass an order in respect of a particular period, though cause to pass an order exists and continues. Due to applicability and availability of a provision providing limitation, Authority concerned cannot pass an order of assessment or re-assessment, but as soon as that disability is lifted, either by amendment in the Statute or otherwise, the Authority can always proceed to exercise its statutory function. There is a general exposition of law that limitation once expired will not revive, but that will have no application to the present case inasmuch it is not a case of revival of limitation, but prescription ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
