Assessment limitation notification applied to fresh assessments under the same statutory scheme, defeating the limitation objection.

Section 27(8) and proviso (a) to the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 were construed as part of the same assessment-time-limit scheme, with the proviso only fixing the starting point for fresh assessments arising from court orders. Section 27(9), which authorises extension of the period by notification for recorded reasons, was held to control that limitation framework through its non obstante clause. There was no basis to treat fresh assessments under proviso (a) as a separate category requiring a distinct notification. The notification extending the assessment period under Section 27(9) therefore applied to cases falling under proviso (a), and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification issued under Section 27(9) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 extending the period for completion of assessment proceedings also applied to fresh assessments governed by proviso (a) to Section 27(8) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 27(8) and proviso (a) dealt with the time-limit for assessment and fresh assessment, while Section 27(9) empowered the State Government, by notification and for recorded reasons, to extend the period for completion of assessment proceedings. The proviso and the substantive sub-section were treated as part of the same legislative scheme and as prescribing the same two-year period, with the proviso merely identifying the starting point for fresh assessments arising from court orders. The non obstante clause in sub-section (9) was read as controlling the limitation scheme in Section 27(8), and there was no basis to treat proviso (a) as creating a separate class requiring a distinct notification. The interpretive authorities cited on provisos did not alter that conclusion because the proviso here operated as a limited exception within the same subject-matter.

Conclusion: The notification extending limitation under Section 27(9) covered cases falling under proviso (a) to Section 27(8), and the limitation objection failed.

---