9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1535 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxChallenge to ex parte reassessment order - whether the ex parte reassessment order is time-barred u/s 29(7) of the Punjab VAT Act 2005 which stipulates a three-year limitation period for amending an assessment order? - HELD THAT - As per Section 29(7) the decision has to be taken by the Designated Officer with the prior permission of the Commissioner within a period of three years from the date of original assessment order. However the provisional assessment order was for 2012-2013 issued on 19.08.2019 which has been passed after a period of 01 month and 08 days. It may be noticed that Hon ble the Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 21-2022 in Misc. Application No. 665-2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition ( C) No. 3-2020 took cognizance in March 2020 for the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi judicial proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central and/or State) due to the outbreak of the COVID 19 pandemic. On 22.03.2020 Hon ble the Supreme Court directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before Courts/Tribunals including this Court w.e.f 15.03.2020 till further orders. On 08.03.2021 the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end permitting the relaxation of period of limitation between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021 and the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. Conclusion - The period has been clearly excluded in computing the total period wherever limitation is prescribed. Accordingly we also exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of counting three years period. Therefore as the said period is considered to be dies non we reject the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was bad in law. However he may address on the other issues on the next date of hearing. List again on 02.09.2024.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the ex parte reassessment order dated 27.09.2022 is time-barred under Section 29(7) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, which stipulates a three-year limitation period for amending an assessment order. The secondary issue involves the applicability of the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Timeliness of the Reassessment Order under Section 29(7) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 29(7) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, allows a designated officer, with the prior permission of the Commissioner, to amend an assessment within three years from the date of the original assessment order if under-assessment of tax is discovered due to fraud, willful neglect, misrepresentation, or escaped turnover. The provision requires an opportunity of being heard to be afforded to the affected person before amending the assessment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted Section 29(7) in conjunction with the Supreme Court's orders regarding the extension of limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court acknowledged that the original assessment order for the year 2012-2013 was issued on 19.08.2019, and the reassessment order was passed on 27.09.2022. The Court considered the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 as excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period due to the Supreme Court's directions. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that the reassessment order was time-barred as it was issued beyond the three-year period from the original assessment order. However, the Court found that the exclusion of the COVID-19 period brought the reassessment order within the permissible time frame. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the law, the Court concluded that the reassessment order was issued within the extended limitation period, considering the exclusion of the COVID-19 period as directed by the Supreme Court. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner contended that the reassessment order was invalid due to being time-barred. The Court rejected this argument, relying on the Supreme Court's orders extending the limitation period due to the pandemic. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the reassessment order was not time-barred, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded from the limitation period, effectively bringing the reassessment within the permissible time frame. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court held, "We are of the view that the said period during Covid 19 i.e 23.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 have to be excluded for the purpose of limitation." This reflects the Court's reliance on the Supreme Court's orders to exclude the COVID-19 period from the limitation calculation. Core Principles Established: The judgment establishes the principle that periods of limitation prescribed under general or special laws can be extended in light of extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, based on higher judicial directions. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the reassessment order dated 27.09.2022 was not time-barred due to the exclusion of the COVID-19 period from the limitation calculation, as per the Supreme Court's directions. The petitioner's argument regarding the time-bar was rejected, and the case was listed for further hearing on other issues.
|
