TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amended proviso to section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could be applied retrospectively to reopen assessments that had already become barred by limitation and finally completed; whether the impugned suo motu revision orders were valid in law.
Analysis: The original section 34 prescribed a five-year outer limit for exercise of suo motu revision. That period had expired before the amendment came into force. The amendment, though procedural in form, could not revive a power that had already become barred under the unamended provision. A later amendment extending limitation may apply to pending matters, but it does not reopen completed proceedings or revive a barred right unless the statute expressly so provides. The proviso excluding the period between the High Court and Supreme Court decisions was therefore not available to unsettle assessments that had already attained finality.
Conclusion: The amended proviso could not be applied to the completed assessments, and the revision orders were without legal basis.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the impugned revision orders were set aside because the reassessment power had already become time-barred before the amendment took effect.
Ratio Decidendi: A later amendment to a limitation provision cannot revive a revision or assessment power that had already become barred and final before the amendment, unless the statute expressly gives such retrospective effect.
TaxTMI 
