TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the consequential assessment order passed after remand under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the consequential assessment order passed after remand under section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the consequential assessment order passed after remand under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The limitation for passing an order consequent upon remand was three years from the date of receipt of the remand order. The record showed that the original remand order had been passed in 2008, while the consequential demand was issued only in 2012, well beyond the prescribed period. The absence of any effective rebuttal to the plea of limitation supported the conclusion that the consequential order could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The consequential order was time-barred and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the consequential assessment order passed after remand under section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The same limitation principle applied to the VAT proceedings. The remand had been made in 2008, but no consequential order was passed within three years. The demand raised in 2012 was therefore beyond the permissible period, and the challenge to limitation was not effectively denied.
Conclusion: The consequential order was time-barred and liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned consequential demands in both matters could not be sustained as they were issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, and the writ petitions succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A consequential order passed after remand must be made within the statutory limitation period counted from the remand order, and any order issued beyond that period is void as time-barred.
TaxTMI 
