Retrospective limitation extension for reassessment upheld where the notice fell within the amended period

An amendment extending the limitation period for reassessment of escaped turnover was treated as part of the procedural machinery, not the charging provision, so it operated retrospectively. On that basis, reassessment notices issued after the amendment could validly apply to earlier assessment periods, provided they fell within the extended five-year period. The challenge based on limitation therefore failed because the notice in question was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation introduced by the amendment to the entry tax law applied to reassessment proceedings initiated after the amendment in respect of escaped turnover relating to an earlier assessment period.

Analysis: The limitation provision governing reassessment was treated as part of the procedural machinery and not as a charging provision. On that footing, the amended provision extending the period from three years to five years was held to be retrospective in operation and capable of applying to reassessment notices issued after the amendment, even where the relevant assessment period had commenced earlier. The Court held that the notice for the assessment period in question fell within the extended five-year period and was not barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The amended limitation applied to the reassessment notice, and the challenge based on limitation failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment extending the period for reassessment of escaped turnover operates retrospectively when it is a procedural machinery provision, and a notice issued within the extended period is valid even for an earlier assessment year.

---