TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case as well. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed. Petition allowed. - W.P.No.32177 of 2022 & WMP.Nos.31602 and 31603 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2022 - THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH For Petitioner : Mr.G.Shivadass, Senior Counsel Mr.S.Muthuvenkatraman For Respondent : Mr.J.Kumaran Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) ORDER Mr.J.Kumaran accepts notice for the respondent and agrees that the issue that arises in this writ petition which challenges a notice dated 08.11.2022 for the periods 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 issued under the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 read with Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is covered by an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2139 of 2021 dated 12.09 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 and deny the exemption claimed, computing the differential tax along with interest @ 2% from April, 2004 till date of notice. 4.Thus, in effect, the original order of assessment dated 10.08.2007 had come to be revised under impugned notice dated 04.12.2020 without notice or a pre-assessment proposal having been issued to the petitioner, and long after the period of limitation set out under Section 18 of the Act. To be noted that Section 18 sets out a limitation of five years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates, for assessment of escaped turnover. Thus, for determination of the turnover that has allegedly escaped assessment for the period 2003-04, the period of five years would expire by 31.03.2009 whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue Rs.48,83,72,873/- Rs.1,95,34,915/- Rs.7,85,04,312/- Rs.9,80,39,227/- Therefore, the dealer is hereby directed to pay the above tax and interest amount of Rs.9,80,39,227/- (Rupees Nine crores eighty lakhs thirty nine thousand two hundred and twenty seven only) immediately failing which action will be taken to collect the arrears as per the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 6.In my considered view, the above conclusion, wherein the officer has proceeded to revise the original assessment, is entirely mis-conceived and contain several irregularities and illegalities. The officer has proceeded to: (i) revise assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -condition for the limitation under Section 468(2) to stand triggered. Such determination of escapement of turnover, ought to have been made within the time period set out under Section 18 of the Act which has not been done in this case. The impugned notice is thus, also mis-conceived as it proceeds to contemplate a criminal liability in respect of an offence that is incapable of determination, being barred by law. 11.For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice is quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 3.Mr.Kumaran would also confirm that there is no challenge to order dated 12.09.2022 as on date. This is recorded. 4.In light of the admitted position, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
