Notices Deemed Void due to Time-bar; Internal Request Not Valid Reference

The court held that the notices dated 10.02.2009 and 17.02.2009 were time-barred under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The court found that the internal request for clarification did not constitute a valid "reference" under the Act. As a result, the notices were deemed void ab initio and were set aside. Both writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of limitation in concluding assessment for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.
2. Legality and validity of notices dated 10.02.2009 and 17.02.2009 issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation in Concluding Assessment:
The primary issue in the writ petitions was whether the assessment for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was barred by limitation under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (AGST Act). The petitioner contended that under section 19 of the AGST Act, no assessment could be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in respect of which the assessment was made. Therefore, the limitation period for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 had expired on 31.03.2003 and 31.03.2004, respectively.

The respondents argued that a reference was made to the Commissioner of Taxes seeking clarification on the taxability of coconut oil, and the clarification was received on 21.11.2006. Under section 19(3) of the AGST Act, the assessment could be made within two years from the end of the year in which the order in appeal, revision, or reference was communicated to the Assessing Officer. Thus, they contended that the assessment for the years in question would become time-barred on 31.03.2009.

2. Legality and Validity of Notices:
The petitioner received notices dated 10.02.2009 and 17.02.2009 from the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati, asking for the production of books of accounts for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The petitioner challenged these notices on the ground of being time-barred.

Court's Analysis:

Clarification and Reference:
The court examined whether the letter written by the Assessing Officer to the Commissioner seeking clarification on the taxability of coconut oil could be treated as a "reference" within the meaning of section 19(3) of the AGST Act. The court noted that the AGST Act did not provide for any statutory provision for reference. The term "reference" used in section 19(3) was interpreted in conjunction with the words "appeal" and "revision," which are statutorily recognized remedies under the AGST Act. The court concluded that an internal request for clarification could not be construed as a "reference" in law.

Limitation Period:
The court referred to section 19 of the AGST Act, which prescribes the time limit for completion of assessment and re-assessment. Under section 19(1), no assessment could be made after the expiry of three years from the end of the year in respect of which the assessment is made. The court emphasized that the limitation period prescribed for completion of assessment or re-assessment is for a definite purpose, and an assessee cannot be subjected to assessment or re-assessment proceedings for an indefinite period.

Conclusion:
The court held that the impugned notices dated 10.02.2009 and 17.02.2009 were clearly unsustainable as they were beyond the period of limitation. The court adjudged the notices void ab initio and set them aside.

Judgment:
Both writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed. No costs were awarded.

---