Reassessment limitation and reasonable-time revision under sales tax law: notices issued after five years were invalid

Reassessment notices issued under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act after the five-year period from the close of the relevant assessment year were time-barred and invalid. The High Court noted that section 11A permits reassessment only within five years, so notices issued in December 2008 for assessment years ending by 31 March 2001 fell outside the statutory limit. It further held that revisional power under section 21, though not subject to an express limitation, must be exercised within a reasonable period, ordinarily within three years and in any event not beyond five years. The reassessment and consequential demand were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reassessment notices issued in December 2008 for assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01 were within the limitation prescribed for reopening under section 11A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether the revisional power under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be exercised after an unreasonable lapse of time.

Issue (i): whether reassessment notices issued in December 2008 for assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01 were within the limitation prescribed for reopening under section 11A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 11A permits reassessment only within five years following the close of the year for which turnover is proposed to be reassessed. The relevant years had closed long before the notices were issued, and the latest year had ended on 31 March 2001. The notices issued in December 2008 were therefore beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices were barred by limitation and were invalid.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional power under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be exercised after an unreasonable lapse of time.

Analysis: Although section 21 does not prescribe an express limitation, revisional jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable period. The governing principle applied was that such power should ordinarily be exercised within three years and in any event not beyond five years. The attempted reopening after more than five years from the close of the relevant assessment years was therefore impermissible.

Conclusion: The revisional action was also barred by lapse of time and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment and consequential demand were quashed because the proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible temporal limits under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes reassessment within five years from the close of the relevant year, and revisional power is otherwise silent on limitation, both powers must be exercised within the statutory limit or at least within a reasonable period not exceeding five years from the close of the assessment year.

---