TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be treated as pending for the purpose of Section 23 and the time limit mentioned therein shall not be applicable in such cases. We have to notice that the amendments have been brought in after the limitation expired in certain cases, which is before us for consideration. In any event, we have to emphasise that the provision brought in is for extension of period for the purpose of Section 25, which speaks of an assessment of escaped turnover and not the initial completion of assessment. We are of the opinion that the provision would have no application to the present set of cases - The cases in which notices alone wereissued and completion of assessment has not been effected, wherever it has been upheld, necessarily the assessee would be entitled to file objections within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and the Assessing Officer would complete the proceedings in accordance with law, leaving open the remedy of the assessee to file statutory appeals as against the quantum, but not against the question of limitation. The assessment orders wherever they have been upheld, have been upheld only on the question of limitation. - W. A. Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable time was held to be four years. 3. In the writ petitions, the challenge was against the issuance of notice and completion of assessments beyond the four year period as provided under sub-rule (7) (8) of Rule 6 of the CST Rules. The contention of the assessee before the learned Single Judge was that sub-rule (5) having not provided for any period of limitation, it cannot be said that the power to complete assessment could extend endlessly. It was submitted that even if there is no specific period of limitation provided, there should be a reasonable period contemplated; looking at the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities there under and other relevant factors, as has been held in State of Punjab v. Bhattinda District Co-operative Milk Producers India Ltd. [2011 (11) 363]. The learned Single Judge accepted the said proposition and found so in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment: 15.In the said circumstances, I am of the view that even going by the statutory provision under Rule 6(5), the assessment has to be completed within a reasonable time, which shall not be later than the period prescribed under Rule 6(7). 4. The learned Government Pleader submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents made to the KVAT Act extending the period for completion of assessments and found that it will not render any assistance to the State while finalising the assessments under Rule 6(5). The finding was in the context of the reliance placed on Bhattinda District Co-operative Milk Producers India Ltd. [supra] that the assessments should be finalised within a reasonable period. It was also found that the initiation of proceedings has to be within the specified time and only when there is delay in completion of assessment, the extension by the provisos introduced in the various Finance Acts could render assistance to the State. Finding that in none of the cases above referred, notice has been issued within a period of four years, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on Abdul Majeed P.A. v. State of Kerala [2012 20 KTR 554(Ker) and allowed the writ petitions setting aside the notices for assessment as also the assessment orders. 6. We have to notice that Abdul Majeed P.A. [supra] specifically dealt with a proceeding under Rule 6(7), where there was a re-asessment proposed and found the four year period to be sacrosanct. The Division Bench of this Court in Parisons Foods (P) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing authority. Long delay thus is not in the interest of either the assessee or the State. In view of the fact that a period of limitation has been prescribed for bringing the escaped turnover into the net of taxation, such an eventuality cannot be grappled with appropriately unless timely assessment is completed. In several taxing statutes, even in a situation like this, where assessment under Section 11(3) or 28(3) of the respective Acts is contemplated, a period of limitation is provided. Until by statute, such a limitation is provided, it is proper for the State Governments to require, by statutory rules or appropriate instructions, to ensure completion of assessments with expedition and reasonable haste but subject to rules of natural justice. 9. Respectfully bowing to the above observations as also the finding in Bhattinda District Co-operative Milk Producers India Ltd. [supra] we have to see what would be the reasonable period depending upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. As noticed in Parisons Foods (P) Ltd., [supra] there being no limitation provided under Rule 6(5); by virtue of Section 9(2) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reconciliation statement prescribed, or (iii) fails to file the annexures,statements, certificates, declarations, including the statutory declarations to be filed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which are required to be filed along with the returns to prove the correctness of the concessional rate of tax, exemptions and exports claimed in the returns, or (iv) fails to declare any sale, purchaseor interstate stock transfer as evidenced from the documents prescribed under section 46 available with the returns, the assessment of such dealer for the relevant year for the purpose of section 25 shall be treated as pending and the time limit mentioned thereunder shall not be applicable in such cases. 11. Reliance is placed on sub-clause (iii) tocontend that the CST assessment has to be treated as pending for the purpose of Section 23 and the time limit mentioned therein shall not be applicable in such cases. We have to notice that the amendments have been brought in after the limitation expired in certain cases, which is before us for consideration. In any event, we have to emphasise that the provision brought in is for extension of period for the purpose of Section 25 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-2010 is concerned, the notice dated 31.01.2015 is within the limitation period. We hence find that the assessment for the said year was within the limitation period. We hence partly allow W.A. No.1172 of 2017, upholding the assessment for the year 2009-2010, only on the question of limitation. (viii) W.A. No.1175 of 2017 dealt with assessment year 2010-2011 and the notice issued was on 11.01.2016 within the limitation period. W.A. No.1175 of 2017 hence would stand allowed. (ix) In W.A. No.1179 of 2017 for the assessment year 2009-2010, a notice was issued on 17.08.2016 beyond the limitation period. W.A. No.1179 of 2017 would stand rejected. (x) W.A. No.1233 of 2017 was concerned withthe assessment year 2007-2008 and the notice issued was dated 07.11.2015 beyond the period of limitation. W.A. No.1233 of 2017 would stand rejected. (xi) W.A. No.1333 of 2017 dealt with threeassessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 20082009. The notices issued under Rule 6(5) were all dated 23.01.2015 beyond the period of limitation for all the said assessment years. W.A. No.1333 of 2017 would stand rejected. (xii) W.A. No.1284 of 2017 dealt with noticesdated 14.10.2015 for fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
