Limitation for assessment and appeal delay: later extension cannot revive time-barred jurisdiction, and unexplained delay stays uncondoned.

An assessment completed after the three-year period under section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was treated as time-barred because no competent extension was obtained before limitation expired; a later extension could not revive the lapsed jurisdiction or validate the assessment. The accompanying delay in filing the appeal was also held not to merit condonation, as the explanation did not establish sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The note therefore emphasizes that limitation extensions must be secured in time and that inordinate delay requires a substantiated explanation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether a later extension of time could validate it; (ii) whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the showing made.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether a later extension of time could validate it.

Analysis: Section 11(3) prescribed a three-year period for completing assessment from the last date fixed for furnishing the return. On the facts, the assessment could be completed only up to the prescribed date, but the order was passed much later. The court held that no competent order extending limitation had been made before expiry of the limitation period, and a subsequent extension could not confer jurisdiction to complete an otherwise time-barred assessment. The prior decision in the analogous matter was followed.

Conclusion: The assessment was barred by limitation and the later extension did not validate it.

Issue (ii): Whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal could be condoned on the showing made.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay did not satisfy the requirement of sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The delay was substantial, and the materials placed did not justify condonation on the settled principles governing inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment failed both on merits and on limitation, leaving the assessee's relief intact.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to extend the period for completing an assessment must be exercised before the assessment becomes time-barred, and a subsequent extension cannot revive a lapsed jurisdiction.

---