TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and had adjusted the same against the exemption limit. Under the circumstances, on the facts as emerging from the record, the Commissioner had no reason to believe that the assessee had concealed any material particulars or had furnished incorrect declaration or return. Therefore, the ingredients of clause (a) of section 44 of the Act are clearly not satisfied. Consequently, the Assessing Authority was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation under section 44(a) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, did not commit any legal error in holding that the reassessment was barred by limitation. Having regard to the fact that the reassessment under section 44 of the Act is itself barred by limitation, it is not necessary to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no demand was raised in the assessment. The assessing authority thereafter took the matter in reassessment and raised a demand of ₹ 52,61,140/- on the ground that the assessee should have paid additional tax by way of cash payment instead of adjusting the same against the exemption limit under the respective scheme. The assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, which dismissed the appeal. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal, which by the impugned order dated 17.10.2014, allowed the appeal inter alia on the ground that reassessment under section 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was barred by limitation. 3. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration of return so as to warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation under section 44(a) of the Act. It was submitted that in case where the provisions of clause (a) of section 44 are not satisfied, the limitation for making re-assessment is five years. In the present case, the period of five years in relation to the year 2000 expired on 31.12.2005 whereas the reassessment proceedings came to be initiated on 4.2.2006 which was clearly beyond a period of five years. It was, accordingly, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that the reassessment under section 44 was barred by limitation and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on other issues and that the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on account of the Commissioner having reason to believe that the dealer had concealed such sales or specified sales or purchases or any material particulars relating thereto, or has knowingly furnished incorrect declaration or return. On a perusal of the orders passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority, it is apparent that nothing is indicated therein as to what was the nature of concealment or incorrect declaration or return furnished by the assessee. A perusal of the order of assessment dated 27.7.2004 clearly shows that the assessing authority at the relevant time had taken into consideration the additional tax payable under section 4A of the Act and had duly computed the tax liability after considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
