9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Mr.A.P. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M. Hari Haran, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer, on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act) has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the assessment order, dated 23.05.2017, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned re-assessment is time barred in terms of Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act as the original assessment order was passed on 10.06.2011 and the time limit of five years expires on 09.06.2016. However, the amendment brought under Act 23/2012 amending Section 27 of the TNVAT Act with effect from 19.06.2012 has held to be prospective. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 09.06.2016. Therefore, the assessment for the relevant year could not have been reopened and redone. The respondent cannot place reliance on the amendment to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, which was brought about by Act 23 of 2012, with effect from 19.06.2012, and therefore, such amendment can be only on prospective. Hence, the respondent cannot state that the period of limitation is six years. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
