9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority and remitted the matter to the 1st Appellate Authority for passing a speaking order. The 1st Appellate Authority vide order dated 3.2.2014 had opined that the assessment has been made within the period of limitation and was not time barred. The appeal filed against the order dated 3.2.2014 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 5.11.2015. The aforesaid appeals have been filed raising the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Assessing Authority is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 29(4) as prevalent on the date of assessment order? VATAP No. 81/2016 In the present case, assessment of the appellant for the assessment year 2007-08 was framed vide order dated 29.10.2013. Appeal filed against the order was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.7.2014. The appeal filed before the Tribunal was dismissed on 20.11.2015. The present appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the orders (Annexure A-1), (Annexure A-2) and (Annexure A-3) are legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in Section 29(4) of the Act on 15.11.2013, vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013, extending the period for framing the assessment from 3 years to 6 years, however the same will not apply in the case of appellants. He fairly submitted that this is despite the fact that the aforesaid amendment has been held to be retrospective in nature but will be applicable only in pending proceedings. Reference was made to judgment of this court in Amrit Banaspati Company Limited vs State of Punjab and others (2016) 88 VST 372. He further referred to judgment of this Court in VATAP No. 84 of 2013 State of Punjab vs M/s Olam Agro India Limited, decided on 20.8.2013, whereby action of the State was held to be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal in that case had accepted the appeal of the assessee finding the assessments to be barred by time as the same were framed beyond 3 years from the last date of filing of returns and the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any valid extension of period granted by the Commissioner. It was further submitted that Special Leave Appeal (c) No. 8185 of 2015 State of Punjab vs M/s Olam Agro India Limited, filed by the State was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of returns and the assessments were also framed within six years. In response learned counsel for the appellants submitted that wherever the amendment intended, the assessments have been protected i.e. in the year 2006-07, as provided in proviso to Section 29(4) of the Act. He further disputed the fact that notices were issued to the appellants within three years of the last date for filing of returns. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Discussions Proviso to Section 29(4) of the Act as existed prior to the amendment carried out vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013 and after that, are extracted below:- Before Amendment Section 29. Assessment of Tax: (1) Where a return has been filed under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 26 or in response to a notice under sub-section (6) of Section 26, if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the person specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the person specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under sub-section (11) and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly: Provided that except as otherwise provided in this sub-section, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be intimation under this sub-section, in case, either no sum is payable by the person or no refund is due to him: Provided further that no intimation under this subsection shall be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the return is filed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Commissioner or the designated officer, as the case may be, may, on his own motion or on the basis of information received by him, order or make an assessment of the tax, payable by a person to the best of his judgement and determine the tax payable by him, where,- (a) a person fails to file a return under section 26; or (b) there are definite reasons to believe that a return filed by a person is not correct and complete; or (c) ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of such order to the concerned person." Common question of law raised in all the appeals is as to whether the assessments framed beyond a period of 3 years after the last date for filling of returns for the assessment years in question are barred by limitation, if considered in the light of the provisions of Section 29(4) of the Act, as existing on the date of assessment order. No doubt the date on which the assessment was framed, the period prescribed was 3 years, which was extendable to 6 years, by an order passed by the Commissioner in writing to that effect. In the aforesaid case it is not in dispute that the assessments were framed beyond the period of 3 years after the last date of filling of returns. There is a dispute as to whether notices were issued within 3 years of filling of returns or after 3 years. We are not going into another issue sought to raised by the parties that there was any extension granted by the Commissioner or not. The fact which is in dispute is that the period for framing the assessment was increased from 3 years to 6 years vide amendment carried on 15.11.2013 vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013. The validity of the aforesaid amendment was subject m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal was decided by this Court before the amendment was carried out, hence, dealt with in terms thereof. Though Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed, however, issue regarding amendment in the Act has not been dealt with. Similar is the position with regard to order passed in M/s Chirag Industries's case (supra), as appeal filed by the State in that case was dismissed relying upon judgment of this Court in M/s Olam Agro India Limited's case (supra). No doubt, the Review Application filed by the State was withdrawn, however, the fact remains that the effect of the amendment vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013, was not considered. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find that there is any error in the order passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the assessments for the year in question, which have been framed within six years from the last date fixed for filing of returns, are within limitation in terms of the amended provisions. As far as VATAP No. 81 of 2016 is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee had raised 5 questions out of which question no.1 is formal. So far as question no.4 is concerned, the same pertains to limitation fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
