TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rucial to be ascertained is that the re-assessment proceedings should have commenced within that time limit in order to be valid, and the date of its conclusion would be inconsequential. Having regard to that settled position of law, the notice for commencing re-assessment proceedings had been issued in the present case on 08.10.2018, which is beyond the period of six years from 30.06.2012 when the assessment was deemed to have been made. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the impugned Notice issued by the Respondent for re-assessment of tax liability of the Petitioner under the TNVAT Act and the same is quashed. Petition ordered. - W.P. No. 30618 of 2018 And W.M.P. No. 35698 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-12-2020 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the TNVAT Act. 3. It must, at once, be pointed out here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sales Tax Officer -vs- Sudarsanam Iyengar Sons [(1969) 2 SCC 396] has considered the said issue arising out of similar provisions in Rule 33 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, 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 the limit within which the final order in the matter of assessment should be made, the limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llows:- 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 Sales Tax 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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within that time limit in order to be valid, and the date of its conclusion would be inconsequential. 4. Having regard to that settled position of law, the notice for commencing re-assessment proceedings had been issued in the present case on 08.10.2018, which is beyond the period of six years from 30.06.2012 when the assessment was deemed to have been made. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the impugned Notice No. TIN/33341522659/2009-10 dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Respondent for re-assessment of tax liability of the Petitioner under the TNVAT Act and the same is quashed. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent contends that the Petitioner has been agitating the matter in respect of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
