Limitation for reassessment cannot be revived by a late stay; invalid stay orders cannot extend time under sales tax law.

Reassessment under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was stated to run from service of the reassessment notice, and a later draft order stage did not change the statutory start of limitation. A stay granted after the limitation period had already expired could not revive time-barred proceedings or extend limitation. The note also states that the power to stay assessment proceedings under the first proviso to section 42(1) is confined to extraordinary, supervening reasons; a stay entered merely for additional time does not satisfy that requirement and cannot exclude the relevant period. On that basis, the impugned assessment and reassessment orders, related stay orders, and demand notices were set aside as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment orders for Samvat Years 2029, 2030 and 2032 were barred by limitation under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. (ii) Whether the stay orders passed under the first proviso to section 42(1) were valid so as to exclude the period of limitation for the assessment and reassessment proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment orders for Samvat Years 2029, 2030 and 2032 were barred by limitation under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Analysis: The limitation for reassessment under section 44 commenced from the date of service of the reassessment notice and had to be applied in the manner provided by that provision. The preparation of a draft order under section 46A was a later stage and did not alter the statutory starting point of limitation. The period of three years had expired before any effective stay was made in respect of the reassessment proceedings for those years, and a stay order passed after expiry of limitation could not revive a dead proceeding or extend the statutory period.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders for Samvat Years 2029, 2030 and 2032 were barred by limitation and were without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the stay orders passed under the first proviso to section 42(1) were valid so as to exclude the period of limitation for the assessment and reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The power to stay assessment proceedings could be exercised only for extraordinary and supervening reasons, and not merely because more time was required to complete the assessment. The stay orders in question recorded no reason beyond the need for additional time. Such a reason did not satisfy the statutory requirement and could not justify exclusion of time under the proviso to section 42(1). As the stay orders were invalid, the period covered by them could not be excluded for computing limitation.

Conclusion: The stay orders were unsustainable and ineffective for extending the limitation period.

Final Conclusion: All impugned assessment and reassessment orders, together with the related stay orders and demand notices, were set aside on the ground of limitation and invalid stay.

Ratio Decidendi: A stay of assessment or reassessment proceedings cannot be used to defeat a statutory limitation period unless it is granted for valid extraordinary reasons while the proceedings are still alive; a later stay does not revive proceedings already barred by time.

---