Limitation bar on assessment notice cannot be cured by fraud allegations, departmental instructions, or revisional powers.

A notice issued under the assessment provision was barred by limitation because the extended six-year period had expired before issuance. Allegations of fraud did not save the notice, as it was not issued under the separate provision governing reassessment or amendment in cases of fraud, wilful neglect, misrepresentation, or escaped turnover. A departmental memorandum could not override the statute, and supervisory or revisional powers could not cure a time-barred notice. The availability of an alternative remedy also did not preclude interference where the action was without jurisdiction. The notice was therefore set aside as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under the assessment provision was barred by limitation and could be sustained on the basis of allegations of fraud, a departmental memorandum, or other available statutory powers.

Analysis: The annual statement for the relevant assessment year was due on 20 November 2011, and even on the assumption that the extended six-year period applied, the limitation expired on 19 November 2017. The notice was issued only on 28 May 2019, well after expiry of that period. The attempt to justify the action on the basis of alleged fraud did not assist the respondents because the notice was issued under the assessment provision and not under the separate provision dealing with amendment of an assessment in cases of fraud, wilful neglect, misrepresentation, or escaped turnover. The departmental memorandum could not override the statute, and the existence of supervisory or revisional powers did not cure the time-bar in the impugned notice. The availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent interference where the action was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be time-barred and unsustainable, and it was set aside.

---