9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Additional Government Pleader, for the respondents ORDER The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order, dated June 29, 2007, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer I. The only ground of challenge is that the impugned order of reassessment is barred by limitation. In support of this contention, the petitioner submitted that the assessment for the year 1999-2000 was finalised on November 12, 2004. It was only on April 22, 2005, the petitioner was issued a notice under section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for reassessment. Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, reads as under: 16. Assessment of escaped ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the honourable Division Bench of this court, in the case of M.U.A. Arumugaperumal and Sons, Exports, 636/15, Rajapalayam Road, Chatrapatti 626 102 v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer (FAC) [2008] 16 VST 188 (Mad), in W.A. No. 3243 of 2004, decided on April 24, 2008, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under (paras 8 and 9 at page 192 in 16 VST): 8. It is also brought to our notice that section 16(1)(a) of the Act was later amended by Amended Act 22 of 2002 with effect from July 1, 2002. The amended provision of Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Amended Act 22 of 2002) reads as follows: 'Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king jurisdiction or it is statutorily barred by limitation. The appellant has established that the revision of assessment made under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is statutorily barred by limitation and therefore, it is a fit case for the interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further we are also of the view that the revised assessment made by the respondent is illegal, wrong, without basis and justification. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in W.P. No. 15173 of 2004 (Saba Knitters, No. 690, P.N. Road, Tirupur 641 602. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur (North) Circle, Tirupur), decided on August 4, 2005, wherein this court was pleased to lay down as under: The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive effect. In this, the period for reassessment had not expired the date of amendment. Admittedly, the period, in the case of the petitioner, even as per unamended provision was to expire only on March 31, 2005. The section was amended with effect from July 1, 2002, therefore, it was open to the Department to reopen the reassessment, as per amended provision. In this case, the starting point of limitation was to be taken from the date of the order of reassessment, and not the year of the assessment. It is not disputed that the assessment order, in case of the petitioner, was passed on November 12, 2004, whereas, the notice for reassessment was issued within the period 5/6 months of the order of the assessment. This cannot be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
