9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aktha Siromani (in all Writ Petitions) For the Respondents : Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq Spl.Government Pleader(Taxes) (in all Writ Petitions) COMMON ORDER The common issue that arises for consideration in these three Writ Petitions is whether the proceedings of the Respondent for revised assessment are barred by limitation. 2.The relevant facts relating to the assessment in the three cases are significant for the purpose of ascertaining the period of limitation. The relevant facts, in this regard, are as under: 2(i)W.P. No.36497 of 2006: The dispute pertains to the Assessment Year 1999-2000 and the Original Assessment Order was issued on 31.08.2001. Thereafter, on 16.09.2005, a prerevision notice was issued under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the TNGST Act). The Petitioner filed its 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts set out above and the limitation period specified in the pre-amendment and postamendment S.16(1), the relevant dates in each of the Writ Petitions are set out in the table below: W.P. No. AY Original Assessment Order Date Expiry of Limitation period under preamended Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act. Expiry of Limitation period as per the amended Section 16(1) of the TNGST Act Pre-Revision notice Date 36497 1999-2000 31.08.2001 31.3.2005 31.08.2006 16.09.2005 36865 2000-2001 31.10.2002 31.3.2006 31.10.2007 16.09.2005 36866 2000- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the Impugned Order dated 24.07.2006 is hopelessly barred by limitation. He further submits that the revised assessments in W.P.Nos.36865 and 36866 of 2006, which relate to the Assessment Year 2000-2001, are also barred by limitation. In specific terms, he submits that the limitation period in both the cases expired on 31.03.2006, whereas the revised assessment orders, namely, the Impugned Orders therein, were issued on 24.07.2006. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the following judgments, which are set out below with a brief description of the context therein: (1) State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. M. Mohideen Thamby, 101 STC 86(DB) (Mad) : the dispute relates to the assessment year 1976-77 and a revision notice issued after the five year period under the pre-amended S.16(1) was held to be barred by limitation. (2) Baba Knitters vs. CTO, W.P. No.15137 of 2004 :this dispute relates to the assessment year 1996-97 and a revision notice issued on 31.03.2004 was held to be barred by limitation. (3) Nethaji Readymade Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil,(2012) 47 VST 20 (Mad) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2006 was held to be barred by limitation. (11) M.U.A. Arumugaperumal vs. ACTO (FAC), Srivilliputhur, (2008) 16 VST 188(Mad)(DB) : the dispute related to the assessment year 1995-96, the original assessment order was issued on 07.02.1997 and the pre-revision notice that was issued on 14.04.2004 was held to be barred by limitation. (12) Stanus Amalgamated Estates Limited vs. CTO, Trichy, W.P. No. 3175 of 2006(Mad.)(DB) : this dispute related to the assessment year 1999-2000, the original assessment order was issued on 30.03.2001 and the pre-revision notice dated 23.01.2006 was held to be barred by limitation. 8.In response, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the revised assessment proceedings are not barred by limitation because the limitation period as per preamended Section 16 had not expired when the amendment came into force on 01.07.2002. In effect, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the amended Section 16 would apply to all surviving causes of action as of the date of entry into force of the amendment. In other words, if the original period of limitation had lapsed as of 01.07.2002, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Karnataka Vs. Laxman, (2005) 8 SCC 709 : this case related to the non-applicability of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (6) Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others, (2004) 10 SCC 65 : in this case, it was held that a judicial decision is an authority for what it actually decides and not for what can be read into it by implication. (7) N.K.C. Syed Mohammed Ravoother vs. DCTO, (1958) 9 STC 1(Mad)(DB) : this dispute related to assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939 for the assessment year 1952-53. The original assessment order was issued on 10.02.1954 and, thereafter, a pre-revision notice was issued on 01.01.1956 in respect of escaped assessment under amended Rule 17(1), which came into force on 11.06.1953. In this context, the Division Bench of this Court held that the amended law would apply because the law of limitation is procedural and, consequently, retrospective subject to the rider that it would not apply to rights that are time barred on the date of entry into force of the amendment. 9.With regard to the judgments that we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon in the case reported in (2014) 74 VST 368 . In the said case, this Court held as follows: From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that the amended provisions is not relevant. There is also no dispute that the revision of assessment is barred by limitation period commences from the date of final assessment order. The said provision came into effect prospectively and not retrospectively. There is nothing in the amendment made to Section 16(1)(a) that the same was intended to operate retrospectively. There is no dispute regarding the same. Therefore, the amended provisions is not relevant. There is also no dispute that the revision of assessment is barred by limitation as early as on March 31, 2001, which is much before the introduction of amended provision of Section 16(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 22 of 2002, which came into effect from July 1, 2002.... (emphasis added). 12.With regard to the judgments that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said judgments were not in the context of the TNGST Act. He further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d which is that the claim made under the amended provision should not itself have been a dead claim in the sense that it was time-barred before an amending Act with a larger period of limitation comes into force.... 17.In the said UTTAM STEEL LTD judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to several other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court such as the case reported in AIR 1965 SC 171 (cited supra); (2) ITO Vs. INDUPRASAD DEVSHANKER BHATT AIR 1969 778; (3) NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. SHANTI MISRA (1975) 2 SCC 846; (4) T.KALIAMURTHI vs. FIVE GORI THAIKKAL WAKF (2008) 9 SCC 306; and (5) THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA (2011) 6 SCC 739. 18.Similarly, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case reported in (1958) 9 STC 1 (cited supra) held as follows: The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the period of limitation should be only two years, which was all that Rule 17 (1) provided for as it stood on 31 March 1953, at the close of the relevant year of assessment 1952- 1953. Had Rule 17 (1) not been amended, the assessment of escaped turnover would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered. 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)Substantive law deals with rights, obligations and liabilities whereas procedural law deals with the enforcement thereof. (b)The law of limitation is largely procedural and, therefore, ordinarily operates retrospectively. (c)The above principle is subject to the caveat that the claim should not have become barred under the pre-amended law on the date of entry into force of the amendment to the limitation provision. (d)Once the claim is barred under the then applicable law of limitation, a vested right is created in favour of the person resisting the legal action not to be prosecuted in legal proceedings. Consequently, the law of limitation acquires a substantive dimension in such circumstances. In this regard, as held in the case reported in (1958) 9 STC 1, there is no vested right until the original period of limitation expires. (e) Likewise, when the limitation period is curtailed by an amendment, it canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
