9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar to Emkay Industries' case [2004 (5) TMI 545 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], the assessment was required to be finalised within three years. In the present case, the assessment order was required to be passed by April 30, 2001, whereas the same has been passed on August 22, 2003. Thus, there can be no escape from the finding that the assessment order dated August 22, 2003 is barred by limitation - no substantial question of law arises in this appeal - No merit in appeal - Decided against the revenue. - VATAPNos. 152, VATAPNos. 153 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MS. ANITA CHAUDHRY JJ. Ms. Radhika Suri, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, for the appellant. G. R. Sethi and Varun Chadha for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala (DETC) who vide order dated May 27, 2005, annexure A2, affirmed the order of the assessing authority. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal with the plea that as per the provisions of section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short, the 1948 Act ), the assessment was required to be completed within three years from the last date of filing of the last quarterly return of the relevant assess ment year and thus the assessment for the year in question was required to be completed by April 30, 2001 whereas the assessment order had been passed on August 22, 2003 which is alleged to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal vide order dated March 1, 2013, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as challenged before this court wherein it was observed that when the return was filed, there was no limitation of three years for finalisation of assessment. By virtue of Ordinance dated March 3, 1998 which received the assent of the Governor of Punjab on April 15, 1998, section 11 of the 1948 Act was amended and it provided time-limit of three years for assessing authority to pass the order. The Revenue insisted that the amended provisions were not applicable in the case. However, this court held that as per the amended law, limitation came to an end on April 30, 2001 whereas the notice was served on July 4, 2002. It was held that the substituted section 11 of the 1948 Act created a substantive right in favour of an assessee to get his as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
