Reassessment limitation and jurisdiction bar renewal of a notice issued after the statutory period and beyond the earlier scope.

A reassessment notice issued under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as time-barred where the original assessment on the section 7C turnover was completed on 12 July 2005 and the five-year reopening period under section 16AA had expired before the March 2011 notice. The existence of an earlier reassessment on a different issue did not extend or revive limitation for the fresh notice. The proposed reassessment also could not validly include turnover from paints and electrical goods because that turnover was not covered by the earlier notice. The notice was therefore quashed for those turnovers for want of jurisdiction and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed reassessment of the turnover assessed under section 7C was barred by limitation under section 16AA of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the reassessment proposal could validly extend to the turnover relating to sale of paints and electrical goods when that turnover was not covered in the earlier notice.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed reassessment of the turnover assessed under section 7C was barred by limitation under section 16AA of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The earlier assessment on the section 7C turnover had been made on 12 July 2005. Section 16AA permitted reopening only within five years from the date of the final assessment. On that basis, the power to reopen that turnover expired on 11 July 2010. The later notice, issued in March 2011, was therefore beyond the prescribed period. The existence of an earlier reassessment on a different aspect did not save limitation for the fresh notice.

Conclusion: The reassessment proposal in respect of the section 7C turnover was barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proposal could validly extend to the turnover relating to sale of paints and electrical goods when that turnover was not covered in the earlier notice.

Analysis: The earlier notice for reassessment was confined to the works contract turnover. The turnover relating to paints and electrical goods was not included in that notice. Since the fresh proposal sought to reopen that additional turnover on the same footing, it could not be sustained once the foundational notice had not covered it and the limitation objection applied with equal force.

Conclusion: The reassessment proposal relating to the turnover on sale of paints and electrical goods was also unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment notice was quashed for the covered turnovers, and the writ petition succeeded on the ground of limitation and want of jurisdiction as to those items.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued beyond the statutory limitation period is without jurisdiction, and a fresh proposal cannot be sustained for turnover not covered by the earlier notice merely because a prior reassessment existed on a different issue.

---