9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts objections thereto on 24.11.2005 stating, inter alia, that the proceedings are barred by limitation but the impugned order revising the assessment was issued on 24.07.2006. 2(ii). W.P. No. 36865 of 2006: The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 and the Original Assessment Order was issued on 31.10.2002 and a rectified order on 02.01.2003 in respect of CST. Thereafter, pre-revision notices were issued on 16.09.2005 and 31.10.2005. The Petitioner submitted its reply/objections thereto on 24.11.2005 citing limitation as a defence but the impugned order of revised assessment was issued on 24.07.2006. 2(iii). W.P. No. 36866 of 2006: The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 and the Original Assessment Order was issued on 31.10.2002 and a rectification order was issued on 02.01.2003 in respect of TNGST. Later, a pre-revision notice was issued by the Respondent on 16.09.2005 and the Petitioner filed its objections thereto on 24.11.2005 citing limitation as a defence but the revised assessment order dated 24.07.2006 was issued, which is impugned herein. 3. During the relevant assessment years, in all three Writ Petitions, Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise as to whether that is sufficient to save limitation. In specific terms, the starting point of limitation under the pre-amended Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act is five years from the end of the assessment year to which the assessment proceedings relate. On the contrary, as per the amended Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act, the starting point of limitation is the date of the final assessment order and re-assessment proceedings may be initiated within five years from the date of the said assessment order. In effect, if the amendment that came into force on 01.07.2002 is held to be applicable to the re-assessment proceedings, the re-assessment in all three Writ Petitions would be, undoubtedly, within the limitation period. 6.In view of the above facts, the critical issue to be considered and decided in these cases is whether the amended Section 16(1) of the Act is applicable or not and an ancillary issue would be whether the issuance of pre-revision notices is sufficient to save limitation in W.P. Nos. 36865 and 36866 of 2006. 7.At the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in all the three Writ Petitions submitted that the Petitioner was a manufacturer of pre-rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 2005-06, the final assessment order was issued on 10.08.2007 and the pre-revision notice issued on 27.03.2013 was held to be barred by limitation under the amended S.16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act. (6)R.K.B. Roof Vs. Assistant Commissioner(ST) Thiruvannamalai II Assessment Circle in W.P.No.1587 of 2018, Order dated 25.01.2018: this is an interim order. (7).M/s.Reliance Motor Company Private Ltd Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1992) 84 STC 201[Mad](DB): the dispute related to the assessment year 1974-75, the original assessment order was issued on 30.10.1976 and the pre-revision notice dated 21.10.1981, which was issued under S.34 of the TNGST Act was held to be without jurisdiction. (8)M/s.Mira Sahni and Another Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Others reported in [2008] 9 SCC 177(Del.)(FB): the dispute related to whether a no objection certificate could be treated as a permission under Section 5 of the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. (9)M/s.Suchitra Components Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2009) 20 VST 726(SC): this case related to the interpretation of a circular and it was held that a circular that is beneficial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1929) Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1982) 49 STC 58(Mad.)(DB): this dispute related to the assessment year 1969-1970 in respect of which an original assessment order was issued on 15.03.1971, which was sought to be revised by revision notice dated 11.03.1975 under S.16(1) of the TNGST Act. In this context, the Division Bench held that the time limit under Section 16 relates to the time limit for initiating a proceeding to determine the escaped turnover and not for issuing the final revised assessment order. (3) Union of India and Others Vs. Uttam Steel Ltd reported in (2015) 13 SCC 209: this case related to an amendment to Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act and the Supreme Court held that the period of limitation is procedural or adjectival law and would ordinarily be retrospective subject to the proviso that the claim should not be time barred when the amendment comes into force. (4) S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal and Co., (1964) 8 SCR 72: this dispute related to assessment under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1954-55, the issuance of pre-revision notice on 12.03.1957 to revise the assessment and whether the amendment to S.34 would apply to the revision of assessment. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issued by the Central Excise Department and that the principle therein is, therefore, not applicable to a statutory amendment. As regards the judgment which is reported in (2014) 74 VST 368 (Mad), he submitted that the Division Bench did not have the benefit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases such as UTTAM STEEL LTD case and that of the Division Bench of this Court in cases such as that reported in (1958) 9 STC 1 and that , therefore, this Court did not consider the proposition that the law of limitation is procedural and is, therefore, applicable retrospectively except when the claim was already barred by limitation as of the date of entry into force of the relevant amendment. 10.In oral submissions by way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Petitioner emphasised that the Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported in (2014) 74 VST 368 (cited supra) and in the STANUS AMALGAMATED ESTATES LIMITED case (cited supra), held categorically that the amendment to Section 16 of the TNGST Act cannot be applied in cases where the original assessment order was passed before the amended provision came into effect. 11.He also relied upon the Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese cases were issued after the amendment came into force. 15.As regards W.P.No.36497 of 2006, the only question that is required to be answered is whether the amendment to Section 16 of the TNGST Act, which came into force on 01.07.2002, can be applied to the re-assessment proceedings in this Writ Petition. In this regard, it is relevant to bear in mind that limitation is an aspect of public policy and that limitation does not extinguish rights but merely bars the remedy. In Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 1122, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "Now it is well settled in the law of this country that the statute of limitation only bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt" 16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases such as UTTAM STEEL LTD (cited supra), which is a decision in the context of Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944, in paragraph 10 of the said judgment, inter alia, held as follows: "....There is no doubt whatsoever that a period of limitation being procedural or adjectival law would ordinarily be retrospective in nature. This, however, is with one proviso super added which is that the claim made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed by law was enlarged, and it was the amended law that determined the liability of the petitioner." 19.As regards the cases that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the judgments in W.P. No.15137 of 2004, (2012) 47 VST 20, W.P.No.34421 of 2013, (2008) 16 VST 188 (all cited supra) are cases wherein the reassessment proceedings would be barred even under the amended Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act. The decisions in (2004) 74 VST 368 and the Stanus Amalgamated Estates case are the only exceptions and both rely on and follow (2008) 16 VST 188, wherein, as stated above, the re-assessment proceedings were barred under the amended Section 16(1) also. More importantly, the binding judgments of the Supreme Court, which are cited in Uttam Steel and the Division Bench judgments of this Court in (1958) 9 STC 1, (1956) 2 MLJ 139 and (1950) 2 MLJ 624 were not cited and the principle that the law of limitation is procedural and, therefore, ordinarily, retrospective was not canvassed and, therefore, not considered. 20.The principles that can be gleaned from the above mentioned judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court are as follows: (a)Substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
