Statutory limitation for reassessment after appellate remand cannot be bypassed by a de novo direction.

Where a statute prescribes a specific limitation period for consequential reassessment after an appellate remand, the reassessment must be completed within that period or it becomes void. The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act each required such reassessment within three years from receipt of the appellate order; reassessments made later were therefore barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The wrong limitation provisions invoked by the assessing and appellate authorities applied to a different situation and could not extend the statutory time limit. A de novo reassessment direction could not revive expired jurisdiction, and the consequential reassessment orders and remand direction were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment orders passed after the appellate remand were barred by limitation under the applicable sales tax statutes; (ii) whether the appellate authority could rely on the wrong limitation provisions and nevertheless direct de novo reassessment.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment orders passed after the appellate remand were barred by limitation under the applicable sales tax statutes.

Analysis: The governing provisions for assessments or reassessments made pursuant to appellate directions were section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Those provisions required the consequential reassessment to be completed within three years from the date of receipt of the appellate order. The reassessment orders were passed beyond that period. The provisions relied upon by the assessing authority and the appellate authority, namely section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, applied to a different statutory situation and could not extend the time prescribed for consequential reassessment pursuant to appellate remand.

Conclusion: The reassessment orders were barred by limitation and were without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could rely on the wrong limitation provisions and nevertheless direct de novo reassessment.

Analysis: Once the statutory time-limit for passing consequential reassessment had expired, no direction from the appellate authority could confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority to proceed afresh. A court or authority cannot validate an assessment made beyond the prescribed period by directing compliance contrary to the limitation scheme enacted by the statute.

Conclusion: The direction for de novo reassessment could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The consequential reassessment orders and the remand direction were quashed, and further proceedings by the assessing authority were restrained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute prescribes a specific limitation period for consequential reassessment pursuant to an appellate order, reassessment beyond that period is void and no administrative or appellate direction can confer jurisdiction contrary to the statute.

---