TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 2006-07 on 12.03.2015. The Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 which would fall under TNGST Act, notices were issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act and for the Assessment Year 2006-07, notice was issued under Section 22 (4) of the VAT Act which came into effect on 01.01.2007. Therefore, notices were issued under TNGST Act and VAT Act by referring to Section 12 (2) after a period of nine months and under Section 22 (4) under VAT Act after a period of three months. In all these cases, no proceedings have been initiated within the maximum time limit provided in the Act, for the escaped turnover. Since no time limit has been fixed under the Best Judgement Assessment, the Court has taken into consideration with regard to the reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of execution of works contract of construction of residential flats. 3. The main issue raised by the writ petitioner in these matters is that all the impugned notices are barred by limitation. In the present cases, the notices were issued to assess the income under Best Judgement Assessment under Section 12 (2) of the TNGST Act and 22 (4) of the VAT Act. However, the period of limitation in terms of Section 16 of TNGST Act is five years and therefore the impugned notices dated 12.03.2015 are without any authority of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no limitation prescribed under TNGST Act to assess the income of the petitioner under Best Judgment Assessment, however in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar view taken by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in WP Nos.28896 of 2019, etc. batch, wherein the learned Judge in Para 49 has held as follows - 49. Such order under Section 22(4) can be passed at any time for a period of six years which is the time already provided for passing of an order of revision of assessment under Section 27 of the Act. The periods of limitation for passing of an order under Sections 22(4) and 27, thus, in my view, co-exist and no order under Section 22(4) an be passed beyond the period of limitation as set out for initiation of proceedings under Section 27 of the Act. Needless to say, this emanates from a comprehensive reading of the statutory provisions at play. He would further submit that against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued under Section 27 under the Best Judgment Assessment for the Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 , 2004 05 and 2006-07 on 12.03.2015. The Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 which would fall under TNGST Act, notices were issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act and for the Assessment Year 2006-07, notice was issued under Section 22 (4) of the VAT Act which came into effect on 01.01.2007. Therefore, notices were issued under TNGST Act and VAT Act by referring to Section 12 (2) after a period of nine months and under Section 22 (4) under VAT Act after a period of three months. In all these cases, no proceedings have been initiated within the maximum time limit provided in the Act, for the escaped turnover. Since no time limit has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
