2013 (1) TMI 706 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside reassessment order due to exceeding limitation period under Andhra Pradesh VAT Act

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the reassessment order dated August 31, 2012, as it exceeded the limitation period specified in section ... Order of reassessment - period of limitation - denova consideration - Held that:- Consequently the first respondent should have passed the order of assessment on or before October 28, 2011. The order of assessment was however passed on August 31, 2012. This error was glossed over in the appellate order of the second respondent dated November 8, 2012 by relying on an inapplicable statutory provision, namely, section 21(4), whereas it is section 37 of the 2005 Act, which is applicable, is the position conceded on behalf of the Revenue. On the aforesaid analysis the order of the second respondent dated November 8, 2012 remitting the matter for de novo consideration by the first respondent cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Since the order of assessment dated August 31, 2012 passed by the first respondent consequent on the earlier order of the second respondent-appellate authority dated September 11, 2008, received by the first respondent on October 29, 2008, is barred by the period of limitation specified in section 37 of the 2005 Act, the said order of assessment is also unsustainable and is so declared. W.P. allowed. Issues:Challenge to reassessment order on the ground of limitation under section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.Analysis:The petitioner, a cold storage unit registered under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, challenged the reassessment order passed by the first respondent. The initial assessment was completed on March 25, 2008, after an inspection revealed tamarind stored in the unit. The petitioner appealed this assessment, leading to a remand by the second respondent on September 11, 2008. The first respondent conducted a reassessment on August 31, 2012, which was contested by the petitioner on the grounds of being time-barred under section 37 of the Act. However, the second respondent upheld the reassessment order on November 8, 2012, citing an incorrect provision, section 21(4), instead of section 37, as acknowledged by the Revenue.The court analyzed the provisions of section 37, which specify a three-year limitation period for making reassessments following appellate interventions. As per the section, the reassessment order should have been issued by October 28, 2011, but it was actually passed on August 31, 2012, exceeding the prescribed time limit. The court noted that the second respondent's reliance on section 21(4) was erroneous, and section 37 was the correct provision applicable in this case, as admitted by the Revenue. Consequently, the court quashed the second respondent's order remitting the matter for reconsideration and declared the reassessment order unsustainable due to being time-barred under section 37.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders based on the incorrect interpretation of the statutory provisions. The reassessment order dated August 31, 2012, was deemed unsustainable due to exceeding the limitation period specified in section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly applying the relevant legal provisions in tax assessment matters to ensure adherence to statutory timelines and procedural fairness.