2018 (1) TMI 1627 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - re-doing of assessment denied on the ground of time limitation as was filed beyond the time limit of five years - Section 27 (1) of the TNVAT Act - HELD THAT - The original assessment order was passed on 10.06.2011 and the time limit of five years expires on 09.06.2016. Therefore the assessment for the relevant year could not have been reopened and redone. The respondent cannot place reliance on the amendment to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act which was brought about by Act 23 of 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012 and therefore such amendment can be only on prospective. Hence the respondent cannot state that the period of limitation is six years. This very issue was decided by the Court in the case of M/S. UNIVERSAL ABRASIVES VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 2013 (10) TMI 440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which decision has attained finality and accepted by the Department. Thus on facts the revision of assessment order is without jurisdiction as it is barred by limitation. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order under TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2008-09 based on limitation period.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, filed a Writ Petition challenging the assessment order for the year 2008-09, claiming it was beyond the five-year limitation period. The Court granted an interim stay on the assessment order, considering the limitation issue raised by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the amendment to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, effective from 19.06.2012, cannot be applied retrospectively to extend the limitation period to six years. Citing the case of Universal Abrasives Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner contended that the assessment order revision was time-barred.

The Court found that the original assessment order was issued on 10.06.2011, and the five-year limitation period expired on 09.06.2016, making the revision of assessment beyond the statutory limit. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the legal bar under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act and could not justify the extension of the limitation period to six years based on the 2012 amendment. Referring to the precedent set by the Universal Abrasives case, the Court concluded that the revision of assessment order was without jurisdiction due to being time-barred.

Therefore, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned assessment order, and closed the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition. No costs were imposed on either party.