2019 (10) TMI 1322 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court rules in favor of petitioner, sets aside revision order under TNVAT Act

M/s. Pushpam Enterprises Versus The State Tax Officer

The High Court of Madras, in a judgment by Mr. Justice M. Govindaraj, ruled in favor of the petitioner, a dealer in general goods, by setting aside a ... Revision of assessment - time limitation - purchase omission of cigarettes effected from Valli and Sons - Section 27 of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessment order was passed on 27.04.2010 - As per Section 27 of TNVAT Act, maximum period for revision shall be five years from the date of assessment order. Whereas, in the present case on hand, the revision notice was issued only on 10.03.2016, i.e., after a period of five years. The revision notice must have been issued before 26.04.2015. Eventhough the sale omission was said to have forwarded by the inspecting officers during surprise Inspection on 10.12.2014, they have not taken any steps to issue the revision notice within the limitation period. Since, the revision was made after a period of five years, it is barred by limitation as per Section 27 of TNVAT Act. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Revision of assessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act issued after the limitation period.2. Applicability of the limitation period for revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act.3. Challenge to the revision order passed by the respondent.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner, a dealer in general goods and an assessee, had the original assessment completed for the year 2009-2010. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice for revision of assessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, citing purchase omission of cigarettes from a specific vendor. The revision notice was issued on 10.03.2016, well after the five-year limitation period prescribed by the statute. The sales suppression was estimated, and a penalty was levied. The petitioner challenged the revision order on grounds of being time-barred.Issue 2: The High Court examined the provisions of Section 27 of TNVAT Act, which stipulate a maximum period of five years from the date of the assessment order for revision. Despite the purchase omission being discovered during an inspection in 2014, the revision notice was issued in 2016, clearly exceeding the statutory time limit. Citing a precedent, the Court emphasized that revising an assessment order beyond the limitation period is impermissible under the law. The Court applied this legal principle to the present case, concluding that the revision was indeed barred by limitation.Issue 3: Considering the clear violation of the statutory limitation period for revision under Section 27 of TNVAT Act, the High Court set aside the impugned revision order dated 29.07.2019. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, with no costs imposed. The Court's decision effectively nullified the revision order issued by the respondent, thereby providing relief to the petitioner and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.In summary, the High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice M. Govindaraj, ruled in favor of the petitioner, a dealer in general goods, by setting aside a revision order issued under Section 27 of TNVAT Act. The Court held that the revision, initiated beyond the five-year limitation period, was barred by law, as established by relevant legal precedents. The detailed analysis of the issues involved showcased the Court's adherence to statutory provisions and principles of limitation in revising assessment orders, ultimately providing legal remedy to the aggrieved petitioner.