Limitation in sales tax assessment may be raised late where facts are admitted and the issue goes to jurisdiction.

Where admitted facts show that the limitation period for a best judgment sales tax assessment has expired, notice and consequent proceedings are barred by time and are invalid to that extent. The text also states that limitation may be raised for the first time before an appellate or revisional forum when the necessary facts are already on record, because the issue goes to jurisdiction and must be applied despite earlier omission to plead it. A tribunal should therefore examine such a plea and cannot refuse it merely because it was not taken before the assessing or first appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notice in form S.T. XIV for making the best judgment assessment was valid when served after the expiry of the limitation period for the first quarter of the assessment year 1964-65. (ii) Whether the plea of limitation could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain it and in invoking section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether service of notice in form S.T. XIV for making the best judgment assessment was valid when served after the expiry of the limitation period for the first quarter of the assessment year 1964-65.

Analysis: The limitation period for making a best judgment assessment had expired before service of the notice, and the admitted dates showed that the notice was issued beyond five years from the end of the relevant quarter. The existence of admitted facts showing bar of limitation enabled the Court to apply the law, even though the point had not been raised earlier before the assessing or first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The notice and the proceedings relating to the first quarter ending on 30 June 1964 were barred by time and were invalid to that extent, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of limitation could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal, and whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to entertain it and in invoking section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, but once the material facts are admitted or established, the appellate or revisional forum must apply the law. A party is not barred from raising limitation for the first time in appeal where the record contains the necessary facts, and a tribunal errs in jurisdiction if it declines to examine such a plea on the ground that it was not taken earlier. The Tribunal's reliance on section 11-A was therefore misplaced in refusing to decide the plea.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was competent before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to entertain it; the answer was against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered in favour of the assessee, the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the opinion expressed, and the reference resulted in a partial success for the assessee on merits with further proceedings before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts necessary to show limitation are admitted or established, limitation may be raised at a later appellate stage because it goes to jurisdiction and must be applied by the court notwithstanding the omission to plead it earlier.

---