TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules pre-revision notice for tax assessment invalid due to limitation and lack of jurisdiction.</h1> <h3>Nethaji Readymade Versus Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil</h3> Nethaji Readymade Versus Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil - [2012] 47 VST 20 (Mad) Issues Involved:The judgment deals with the challenge against a pre-revision notice for revising sales tax assessment for the year 2001-02, based on the grounds of limitation and jurisdiction.Limitation Issue:The petitioner challenged the pre-revision notice on the basis that it was barred by limitation as per section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The notice proposed a total taxable turnover of Rs. 78,36,171 for the year 2001-02. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the five-year limitation period from the date of the original assessment order dated May 30, 2003. The court agreed with the petitioner's contention, ruling that the notice was indeed barred by limitation and could not be sustained in law.Jurisdiction Issue:Another contention raised was that the pre-revision notice was without jurisdiction as only one revision is permissible under the Act. The respondent argued that the notice was issued within five years of the revised assessment order dated August 2, 2004, and therefore, the petitioner could not challenge it on the ground of limitation. However, the court held that even if the limitation was counted from the revised assessment order, the notice could not be sustained due to lack of jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the respondent did not have the authority to revise the assessment under the notice, as there is no provision for a second revision by the same office.Conclusion:The court found merit in the petitioner's arguments and allowed the writ petition. The impugned pre-revision notice dated July 7, 2008, was ordered to be quashed on the grounds of being barred by limitation and lacking jurisdiction. The court closed the connected M.P. 1 of 2008 without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
