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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reassessment notice was barred by limitation and whether the amendment to section 16(1) operated retrospectively so as to invalidate the notice.
Analysis: The limitation point turned on whether the period for reassessment had already expired before the amendment came into force. The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioner on the footing that, in those cases, the limitation period had expired before the amendment. Here, the reassessment period had not expired when the amendment took effect on 1 July 2002. The Court held that the amended provision governed the notice, and that the starting point of limitation was the date of the final assessment order, not merely the assessment year. Since the assessment order was passed on 12 November 2004 and the notice followed within a few months, the action was not time-barred and the amendment was not being applied retrospectively.
Conclusion: The reassessment notice was not barred by limitation, and the writ petition failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment order was sustained and no interference was called for under writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment extending or governing reassessment limitation applies prospectively where the original limitation period had not expired before the amendment came into force, and limitation runs from the date of the final assessment order where the statute so provides.