TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the impugned proposition notice was barred by limitation under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in view of the interim stay order and the exclusion of time under the statute. (ii) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the deferment order and whether that order was invalid for want of notice to the assessee.
Issue (i): Whether the impugned proposition notice was barred by limitation under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in view of the interim stay order and the exclusion of time under the statute.
Analysis: The assessment proceedings had remained deferred during the subsistence of the interim stay order passed by the Court. Under the statutory scheme, the time during which assessment proceedings stand deferred on account of a stay by any court or authority is excluded in computing the period of limitation for completing assessment. The Court also held that the Act does not contemplate piecemeal assessment; an order staying a provision necessary for completion of assessment suspends the assessment proceedings as a whole. Once the excluded period was added back, the impugned notice issued in February 1991 fell within the extended period available for completion of assessment.
Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed and the impugned proposition notice was not barred by time.
Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the deferment order and whether that order was invalid for want of notice to the assessee.
Analysis: The Court construed the statutory provision on exclusion of time to mean that the Commissioner's power to record deferment was not confined to cases unconnected with court-ordered stays. The deferment order made on the basis of the existing interim stay was therefore within jurisdiction. On the complaint of absence of notice, the Court noted that the order had long been placed on record, yet no amendment was sought to challenge it. In the circumstances, and having regard to the assessee's own reliance on the stay order to resist assessment, the Court declined to entertain the belated challenge and treated the alleged procedural defect as non-fatal.
Conclusion: The deferment order was upheld and the objection based on want of notice was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed on both grounds, as the assessment notice was saved by statutory exclusion of time and the deferment order was not shown to be vitiated in a manner warranting interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where assessment is stayed by a court order, the statutory period for completion of assessment stands extended by excluding the stayed period, and a deferment order made on that basis is not without jurisdiction merely because the stay itself already operated to suspend the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
