9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which is deemed to have been completed under proviso to Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 had to be completed within six years for the deemed assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. It is a well settled principle of law that mere mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision would not invalidate an order, if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. The notices that were issued on 23.07.2014 were also notices issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT, Act, 2006. There was only a typographical error in the notices and they were supposed to be issued under Section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The tenor of the notice also make it clear that they were issued for the purpose of revision of Assessment, though Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 can be invoked only to correct errors apparent face on record - The grounds raised by the petitioner on 12.09.2014 was rejected by the Assessing Officer stating that the powers under Section 84 of the Act could not be invoked for these Assessment Years namely 2010-11 and 2012-13 which culminated in orders dated 31.07.2014. Having concluded that the notices issued in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(a) of the Act. It is submitted that since the notices were not adjudicated within the reasonable time, they are liable to be quashed as they have been passed long after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 27(1)(a) of TN VAT Act, 2006. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that in all these writ petitions, earlier notices were issued under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006 and later notices are issued under section 27(1)(a) of the TN VAT Act, 2006. It is submitted that the notices that were issued subsequently were long after the expiry of period of limitation under Section 27 of TN VAT Act, 2006 and therefore, notices which had preceded the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and contrary to section 27(1)(a) of the said Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an identical issue for the Assessment year 2010-2011 came to be passed. The said Assessment order was challenged in W.P.No.6783 of 2021, which was stayed by this Court by its order dated 17.03.2021. Therefore, the impugned orders in these writ petitions where the petitioner has challenged the order of the first respondent/Appellate Deputy Commissioner are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.05.2019. Thus, an attempt to make a re-assessment vide notice dated 27.09.2018 followed by an Assessment Order dated 30.05.2019 was held to be bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Court held that taking the date of revised notice as a reckoning date, initiation of re-assessment proceedings was time-barred after the expiry of six years, as the limitation had already elapsed. 12. This decision was cited by the Petitioner in the case of M/s.Orient Fans (Proprietor - M/s.Orient Paper and Industries Limited ) Represented by its Branch Commercial Incharge, No.24, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 vs. The State Tax Officer, (Backyear Assessment), Egmore Assessment Circle, Chennai which was also rendered in the context of the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2010-2011 respectively. 13. In M/S.Orient Fans (Supra), the decision of Tvl. Victus Dyeings (Supra) was distinguished. It was held that the assessment proceedings were not barred by limitation, as the notice seeking to revise the assessment had been issued in time for four Assessment Years except for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. Since the revision notices were within time, the notice could not be challenged in view of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jagat Ram Om Parkash v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority, Amritsar. Neither of these decisions would be of assistance as the question which was canvassed in Ghanshyamdas's case regarding assessment proceedings having commenced within time and then remaining pending did not come up for consideration. Since the said notice dated January 11, 1957, was served on the Respondent-firm before the expiry of three years from the respective dates for furnishing the returns, the assessment proceedings must be held to have commenced from that date which was within time and thus the assessment proceedings remained pending until they were terminated by the assessment order. Though that order was finalised after the expiry of three years from the said period, it could not be attacked on the ground of its being beyond limitation and therefore without jurisdiction. The order passed by the High Court allowing the Respondent's writ petition has, therefore, to be set aside. The appeal succeeds and the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, we do not propose to pass any order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *M/s. Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v. Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicate that a limitation of three years was prescribed for assessment best Judgment, from the date of return and where no return was filed, within three years after the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held if proceedings are taken within the prescribed time though the assessment is finalised subsequently even after the expiry of the prescribed period, no question of limitation would arise. Relevant paragraph of said decision reads as under :- "In other words, the assessment proceedings commence in the case of a registered dealer either when he furnishes a return or when a notice is issued to him under section 11(4) or 10(3), and if such proceedings are taken within the prescribed time though the assessment is finalised subsequently even after the expiry of the prescribed period, no question of limitation would arise." 19. In Additional Assistant Commissioer of Sales Tax, Indore Region, Indore vs. Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar, (1970) 25 STC 74, the Court was concerned with Section 8 ((1)(a) and (b) of the Mahya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950. Section 8(1)(a) and (b) and Section 10 of the Mahya Bhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Section 10 of the Act is applicable to the case. The reason is that once the proceedings for assessment are initiated under Section 8(1)(a) or (b) it cannot be said that the turnover has escaped assessment unless the proceedings have come to a close." 23. the Court held that if proceedings are taken within the prescribed time though the assessment is finalised subsequently even after the expiry of the prescribed period, no question of limitation would arise and Section 10 was not attracted. The Court further held as under :- "In other words, the assessment proceedings commence in the case of a registered dealer either when he furnishes a return or when a notice is issued to him under Section 11(4) or Section 10(3), and if such proceedings are taken within the prescribed time though the assessment is finalised subsequently even after the expiry of the prescribed period, no question of limitation would arise. The view expressed by this court in Ghanshyam Das v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur has been followed by the court in two recent cases -- Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore v. Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. [21 STC 431] and Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant Assessment years. 28. The petitioner had then filed W.P.No.6783 of 2021, wherein the Petitioner challenging the proceedings mentioned above for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and had secured on interim order on 17.03.2021. Therefore, the Petitioner requested the respondent-Assessing Officer to await for the outcome of the proceedings in W.P.No.6783 of 2021. 29. This is evident from a reading of the replies of the petitioner dated 31.12.2019, 24.02.2000 and 24.02.2020 for the respective Assessment years. Since the petitioner failed to respond to the second set of notices issued on 06.02.2020 for the respective Assessment Years, the respective Assessment Orders have been passed for the Assessment Years as detailed in Table-I on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020 and 07.01.2021, the appeals filed by the petitioner before the first respondent were dismissed vide impugned order. 30. It is a well settled principle of law that mere mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision would not invalidate an order, if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor. 31. In this connection a reference is made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing a reply to Section 84 notice, the Appellant raised certain grounds by filing a petition under Section 84 of the TN VAT Act, 2006. The grounds raised by the petitioner on 12.09.2014 was rejected by the Assessing Officer stating that the powers under Section 84 of the Act could not be invoked for these Assessment Years namely 2010-11 and 2012-13 which culminated in orders dated 31.07.2014. 35. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2014, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.22798 of 2015 , which came to be dismissed on 13.10.2020. Against which, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before this Court in W.A.No.143 of 2021. The said writ appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 20.01.2021, with the following observations:- "6. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is a primordial mistake committed by the Assessing Officer by invoking Section 84 of the Act for reopening the assessment. Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is right in his submission that power to reopen assessment is traceable to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. It is the further submission of the learned Spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 09.10.2014 and hold that the power under Section 84 of the Act is to correct only arithmetical and clerical mistakes, then we have to consequently hold that the reopening of the assessment invoking Section 84 of the Act vide notice dated 30.04.2014 and the consequential revised assessment order dated 09.06.2014, as illegal. Therefore, considering the case in both ways, the Revenue cannot succeed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision in the case of M/s.Sujana towers Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (CT) in W.P.No.30304 of 2014 dated 20.11.2014. In the said decision, the learned Single Bench of this Court had considered the scope of Section 84 of the Act and observed that the power under Section 84 can be invoked to correct errors, more particularly, when records were never called for and those records were anterior to the pre-assessment notice and the reply given by the dealer was not considered. 9. Thus, for the above reasons, we are inclined to allow the appeal and interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
