9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order is within limitation in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 34. The said provision is entirely inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances. The impugned order has not been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any decision of this court which requires the re-assessment of the Assessee/Petitioner. Further, it may be noted that this Court, while disposing of the miscellaneous application vide order dated 17th January, 2020, could not have extended the period of limitation contrary to the statute. On a plain reading of the same, it is evident that this Court only permitted the Respondents to take recourse to further proceedings consistent with the extant laws and the law laid down by this Court in the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2015 as well as notice of assessment of penalty dated 28th March, 2015 for the year 2010-11. 4. The said petition was allowed in favour of the Petitioner vide judgment dated 26th October 2017 along with other batch of matters, holding, inter alia, as under: The present petition has been disposed of by a common judgement passed today in W.P.(C) 6093/2017 and batch. Consequently, the notices for default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ('DVAT Act') and default assessment of penalty under Section 33 of the DVAT Act, dated 28th March 2015, are set aside. A copy of the said judgment is placed below. 5. Aggrieved with the order in the lead case (being W.P.(C.) 6093 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law. The relevant portion of said order reads as under: 1. Counsel for the Applicant seeks leave to withdraw this application with liberty to issue a further show cause notice in accordance with law and to pursue further proceedings consistent with the law laid down by this Court in its judgment dated 26th October, 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 6093/2017 (On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 10th January, 2018. 2. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed/or. 7. In terms of the aforesaid liberty, the Respondents have passed the order dated 15th January, 2021 which is titled as Notice of default assessment of tax and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court in the judgment dated 26th October, 2017 extracted earlier. 10. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid order was passed by ignoring the mandate of Section 34 of the DVAT Act which prescribes limitation for completion of assessment and provides period of four years. 11. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The relevant provision reads as under: Limitation on assessment and re-assessment - (1) No assessment or re-assessment under section 32 of this Act shall be made by the Commissioner after the expiry of four years from (a) the end of the year comprising of one or more tax periods for which the person furnished a return under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. Further, it may be noted that this Court, while disposing of the miscellaneous application vide order dated 17th January, 2020, could not have extended the period of limitation contrary to the statute. On a plain reading of the same, it is evident that this Court only permitted the Respondents to take recourse to further proceedings consistent with the extant laws and the law laid down by this Court in the judgment noted therein. This liberty cannot be construed to mean that the limitation period was extended beyond statutory confines. The contention of the Respondents is untenable. 14. In the present case, the notice is clearly barred by limitation in terms of Section 34 of the DVAT Act and accordingly, we have no hesitancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
