TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do so on account of another order of interim stay passed by this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 21601 of 2004 filed by Dyers Association of Tirupur, till it had been finally decided by order dated 21.07.2017 in favour of the Respondent. This would go to show that the Respondent could not be faulted for the time taken for the finalization of the proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- Tex-in-Printers [ 2013 (10) TMI 1279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has reiterated that after introduction of Section 3-B and the amendment made to the definition of 'sale' in Section 2(n)(ii) of the TNGST Act, the transfer of goods involved in works contract would amount to 'sale' and the entire turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14.05.2018 respectively. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against those orders under Section 31 of TNGST Act, within a period of 30 days from the date of their receipt before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 30 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed these Writ Petitions on 03.10.2018 challenging the orders passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of those orders. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution. It is immaterial whether or not such time-barred appeal had been preferred to the Appellate Authority before filing of the Writ Petition. 4. Despite this Court highlighting that embargo to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner persistently ventilated the grievance that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the re-assessment has not been completed within the time limit of five years from the date of order of the final assessment made by the assessing authority stipulated in Section 16 of the TNGST Act, and relies on the decision of this Court in Tvl. Victus Dyeings -vs- The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Order dated 29.07.2019 in W.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... difference between conclusions in two cases. At the same time, it must be recapitulated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sales Tax Officer -vs- Sudarsanam Iyengar Sons [(1969) 2 SCC 396] has considered the same contention arising out of the provisions in Rule 33 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, which are in pari materia with Section 16 of the TNGST Act, and has enunciated the law as follows:- ..... Our attention has been invited to the appropriate dictionary meaning of the word determine which is to settle or decide -- to come to a judicial decision (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). It is suggested that the word determine was employed in Rule 33 with a definite intention to set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollows:- 10. In State of Punjab -vs- Tarachand Lajpat Raj [19 STC 493] the Court was considering the scope of sub-S.(4) and (5) of S.11 of the Punjab General Salestax Act, 1948. It was held in that case that if a dealer furnishes a return under Sub S(1) or when a notice is issued to him under S.11(2) by the assessing authority within the prescribed period, the assessment can be finalised subsequently even after the expiry of the period and no question of limitation would arise. In State of Punjab -vs- Muralidhar Mahabir Parshad [21 STC 29], it was again reiterated that the period of limitation of three years for making the assessment under sub S.(4) and (5) of S.11 of the Punjab General Salestax Act was only for initiating assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions in W.P. Nos. 15355 and 15356 of 2005 filed by the Petitioner challenging the notices to re-assess the tax, this Court had permitted to proceed further in accordance with law, the assessing authority was unable to do so on account of another order of interim stay passed by this Court in the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 21601 of 2004 filed by Dyers Association of Tirupur, till it had been finally decided by order dated 21.07.2017 in favour of the Respondent. This would go to show that the Respondent could not be faulted for the time taken for the finalization of the proceedings. 6. It is brought to notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
