2012 (2) TMI 454 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court quashes reassessment orders due to time limit, impacting connected cases, not addressing other issues.

Piccadily Sugar and Allied Industries Limited Versus State of Punjab and Others

Piccadily Sugar and Allied Industries Limited Versus State of Punjab and Others - [2013] 57 VST 396 (P&H) Issues Involved:1. Whether the reassessment framed by the assessing authority is within the parameter of limitation provided under section 11A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax on the sale of bardana, bagasse, and molasses.3. Whether the petitioner should have availed of the remedy of appeal provided under section 20(1) of the Act before approaching the court.4. Whether the provisions of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) protect the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation under Section 11A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948:The primary issue is whether the reassessment notices issued in December 2008 are within the limitation period prescribed under section 11A of the Act. Section 11A(1) stipulates that reassessment can be made within five years following the close of the year for which the turnover is proposed to be reassessed. The court observed that the period of five years must commence from the end of the assessment year, not from the date of the original assessment order. As the latest assessment year in question ended on March 31, 2001, the reassessment notices issued in December 2008 are beyond the five-year limitation period. Therefore, the reassessment notices and subsequent orders are quashed as they were issued after the permissible period.2. Exemption from Payment of Sales Tax on By-products:The petitioner argued that the exemption granted for 'white crystal sugar' should extend to its by-products, including molasses, bagasse, and bardana. The court noted that the exemption certificate was specifically for 'white crystal sugar' and not for its by-products. The assessing authority correctly disallowed the exemption for these by-products. However, this issue became moot due to the finding on the limitation period.3. Remedy of Appeal:The respondents contended that the petitioner should have exhausted the remedy of appeal under section 20(1) of the Act before approaching the court. The court did not delve deeply into this procedural aspect, given the substantive finding that the reassessment notices were time-barred. Therefore, the petitions were not dismissed on this procedural ground.4. Protection under SICA:The petitioner also invoked the protection under section 22 of SICA, arguing that the company had been declared a sick unit and was under the rehabilitation process. The court did not find it necessary to address this argument in detail, as the reassessment notices were already deemed invalid due to the limitation issue.Conclusion:The court quashed the reassessment orders dated March 31, 2009, and the corresponding demands, as the reassessment notices were issued beyond the five-year limitation period prescribed under section 11A of the Act. This reasoning applied to all the connected cases, leading to the quashing of reassessment orders in all the petitions.