TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive in nature and the period for framing assessment has been extended to 6 years from 3 years and in the case in hand, the assessment of the appellants in all the cases was framed within the period of six years from the last date fixed for filing of returns, hence, the same cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - VATAP No. 39 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-9-2018 - Mr Rajesh Bindal And Mr Amit Rawal, JJ. For The appellants : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate And Mr. M. R. Sharma, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, ORDER Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of five appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 39, 48, 81, 88 and 90 of 2016, as common questions of law and facts are sought to be raised. The assessee is in appeal before this Court against the order passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal). VATAP Nos. 39, 48, 81 and 88/2016 Assessment of the appellants in the present appeals for the assessment year 2007-08 was framed vide order dated 30.3.2012. Appeal filed against the order was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Authority vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.11.2011. Further whether the order dated 29.10.2013 is antedated. More so the same has been served on 02.01.2014 as upheld by the VAT Tribunal is correct in law in view of the various pronouncement in this behalf ? ( v) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the VAT Tribunal Punjab Chandigarh has grossly erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala has grossly erred in levying purchase tax under Section 4-B of the Punjab VAT Act on the State Advised Price instead of SMP paid by the appellant as per order of assessment (ANNEXURE A-1) ? Arguments Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in terms of Section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), assessment could be framed within 3 years after the date when the annual statement was filed or due to be filed, whichever is later. For the assessment year 2007-08, the last date for filing the return was 30.11.2008. Hence, assessment could be framed only upto 30.11.2011. It is only the proviso to the aforesaid section which empowers the Commissioner to extend the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State that extension was granted by the Commissioner but nothing was placed on record and the order of extension was not served. The case is fully covered by M/s Olam Agro India Limited 's case (supra). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants are totally misconceived and if the same are accepted, it will create an anomalous situation. Though this Court has held the amendment of Section 29(4) of the Act, as carried out vide notification dated 15.11.2013, to be retrospective in nature but the stand of the appellant is that the same will apply only in pending cases and not in the concluded ones. Once the amendment has retrospective effect that will automatic take care of the orders passed during the extended period. Vide aforesaid amendment, the period of limitation for framing the assessment was increased from 3 years to 6 years, hence, the legal issue sought to be raised by the appellant is fully covered by judgment of this Court in Amrit Banaspati Company Limited 's case (supra). It was further submitted that the judgment in M/s Olam Agro India Limited 's case (supra), will not be appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 26; or ( b) there are definite reasons to believe that a return filed by a person is not correct and complete; or ( c) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is liable to pay tax, but has failed to pay the amount due; or ( d) a person has availed input tax credit for which he is not eligible; or ( e) provisional assessment is framed. ( 3) The Commissioner on his own motion or on the basis of information received by him may, by an order in writing, direct the designated officer to make an assessment of the amount of tax payable by any person or any class of person for such period, as he may specify in his order. ( 4) An assessment under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), may be made within three years after the date when the annual statement was filed or due to be filed, whichever is later: Provided that where circumstances so warrant, the Commissioner may, by an order in writing, allow assessment of a taxable person or a registered person after three years, but not later six years from the date, when annual statement was filed or due to be filed by such person, whichever is later. After Amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of which annual statement for the assessment year 2006-07 has already been filed, can be made till the 20th day of November, 2014. Explanations: (1) The limitation period of six years for an assessment under sub section (2) or sub-section (3), shall also apply to those cases in which the aforesaid period of six years has yet not expired. ( 2) It is clarified that prior to commencement of the Punjab Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2013, the Commissioner was not required to issue any notice to the concerned person before extending the limitation period of assessment. xx xx xx ( 10-A) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, an order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (4) prior to commencement of the Punjab Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2013, shall not be invalid on the ground of prior service of notice or communication of such order to the concerned person. Common question of law raised in all the appeals is as to whether the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 's case (supra), is stated to be pending, however, there is no interim stay. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law whereby the amendment carried out vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013 has been held to be retrospective in nature and the period for framing assessment has been extended to 6 years from 3 years and in the case in hand, the assessment of the appellants in all the cases was framed within the period of six years from the last date fixed for filing of returns, hence, the same cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the amendment will apply only in the pending cases and not where the assessment had already been framed, is totally misconceived and deserves to be rejected, as any amendment of law with retrospective effect, cannot be read in the manner suggested by the appellants. Reliance on the judgment of this Court in M/s Olam Agro India Limited 's case (supra), is also misplaced for the reason that in the aforesaid case the assessment was framed prior to the amendment vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013 and even appeal was decided by this Court before the amendment was carried out, hence, dealt with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
