Limitation bars reassessment when the reopening period has already expired, and penalty proceedings based on it also fail.

Reassessment cannot be initiated after the original limitation period has expired, even if a later amendment extends the time limit, because the amending provision does not revive a power that was already barred. Where the assessment year had already run its course before the amendment came into force on 1 April 1998, the department lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 19. As the reassessment itself was without jurisdiction, the penalty proceedings founded on it also could not survive and failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment under section 19 was barred by limitation on the date the amending provision came into force, and whether the consequential penalty proceedings could survive.

Analysis: The assessment year in question had already run its course before the amendment enhancing the time-limit came into force on 1 April 1998. Once the original period for reopening had expired, the department had no subsisting authority to revive the barred power by relying on the amended provision. The later amendment could not be applied so as to authorise initiation of reassessment proceedings after the limitation had already expired. As the reassessment itself lacked jurisdiction, the penalty notice founded on it could not stand.

Conclusion: The reassessment was barred by limitation and was without jurisdiction; the consequential penalty proceedings also failed.

---