TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 16(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 22 of 2002, which came into effect from July 1, 2002. Coming to the next contention regarding alternative remedy, the appellant has established the revision of assessment made under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is statutorily barred by limitation and therefore, it is a fit case for the interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further we are also of the view that the revised assessment made by the respondent is illegal, wrong, without basis and justification. Thus the revised assessment passed by the appellant is statutorily barred by limitation under section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act. Set aside the order of the learned single judge and the writ appeal is allowed. - W.A. No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt an objection dated April 27, 2004 to the respondents submitting that the revision of assessment under section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act was clearly barred by limitation on the ground that pre-revision notice was issued on April 14, 2004, which is after the expiry of five years. After considering the objection, the respondent has completed the revised assessment for the year 1995-96, which is as follows: Total turnover for the year1995-96 Rs. 10,46,359 Tax due Rs. 83,709 Tax paid nil Balance Rs. 83,709 Surcharge: Surcharge at 15 per cent is also levied for the year 1995-96. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to consider and pass such interim orders which are necessary in the circumstances of the case even during the pendency of the appeal, if sought for, in strict observance of the law, rules and procedures. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the revision of assessment passed by the respondent for the assessment year 1995-96 is statutorily barred by limitation. Further it was contended that when the respondent has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment, the existence of alternate remedy of filing appeal is not a bar in approaching this court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show-cause against such assessment. The above section deals with the revised assessment of escaped turnover. From a bare reading of the above provision it is clear that if for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment of tax, the assessing officer has power to revise the assessment at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. In the present case, the assessment year is 1995-96 and the period of five years expires on March 31, 2001. However, the assessing officer has power to reassess on or before March 31, 2001. But, the pre-revision notice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. There is no dispute regarding the same. Therefore the amended provision 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. Coming to the next contention regarding alternative remedy, normally under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available under the statute and the same can be exercised only when the order is lacking jurisdiction or it is statutorily barred by limitation. The appellant has established the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
