TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal dated 23.12.2002 should stand excluded because after the Original Assessment order was passed, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Fort Round, Vellore and appeal was rejected as time barred. Thus if the time during which the matter was pending before the Appellate Authority and the Special Tribunal is excluded, then the impugned proceedings is not barred by limitation - no limitation bar. Liberty granted to the petitioner to treat the impugned proceedings as show cause notice and submit their objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this. On receipt of the objections, the respondent shall afford an opportunity to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that the impugned proceedings is clearly barred by limitation as it is an assessment under section 16 of the TNGST Act and the relevant assessment year is 1997-98 and in terms of the section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act, the assessment of the escaped turnover could have been made at any time from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. It is contended that in so far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the relevant year being 1997-98 the escaped turnover could have been reassessed within a period of five years from the date of which the year of assessment relates which will come to an end on 31.03.2003. It is pointed out that the notice for best judgment assessment in the instant case was issued on 10.02.2004 and therefore i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate submissions were made by the learned Counsel on both sides. In my view, if the factual position in the instant case is examined, it is evidently clear that the action initiated by the respondent is well within the period of limitation. Initially, the assessment was completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai I Assessment Circle and an order passed on 10.03.2000. As against this order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected as time barred, as against which, the petitioner filed an original petition before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P.No.1019 of 2002. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai I Assessment Circl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred. It is thereafter the original petition was filed before the Special Tribunal in the year 2002 which was disposed of by order dated 23.12.2002. Thus if the time during which the matter was pending before the Appellate Authority and the Special Tribunal is excluded, then the impugned proceedings is not barred by limitation. Thus the plea that the impugned order is barred by limitation stands rejected. 7.This leaves us with the only question as to whether the impugned order of assessment was passed in a proper manner. The facts noted above clearly shows that the petitioner did not co-operate in the assessment proceedings. He did not produced the books of accounts and when summons were produced, he did not submit his objections to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
