9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 initiated after 01.04.2005 would have to be governed by the period of limitation of four years prescribed in Section 74A(2)(b) of the DVAT Act, 2004. We had repelled the contention of the respondents that it would be the period of five years prescribed under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Act) which would apply. We had given several reasons as to why we had come to the said conclusion. 2. However, we note that in our said judgment dated 22.05.2012 the provisions of Section 106 which we had quoted and considered only pertained to sub sections (1), (2) and (3). It has now been brought to our notice that sub section (4) has been added to Section 106 of the DVAT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by or under this Act, as if this Act were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken, and all arrears of tax and other amounts due at the commencement of this Act may be recovered as if they had accrued under this Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, for the purpose of the levy, assessment, deemed assessment, re-assessment, appeal, revision, review, rectification, reference, registration, collection, refund or input or credit of input tax of allowing benefit of exemption or deferment of tax, imposition of any penalty or of interest or forfeiture of any sum, which relates to any period ending before 1st day of April, 2005 or for any other purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 on other grounds. Since we had not examined those other grounds in view of our conclusion on limitation, we feel that it would be appropriate that the matter be now placed before the roster Bench for a decision on those matters. 5. We may also put on record that the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Ravi Electronics v. Assistant Commercial Tax Commissioner: (2013) 63 VST 414 (Guj). However, we are of the view that the said decision of the Gujarat High Court may have applied in the absence of a provision like Section 106(4) of the DVAT Act, 2004 but, it certainly would not have application when sub-section (4) of Section 106 clearly points in a diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
