Retrospective limitation amendment and timely pre-revision notice kept reassessment proceedings within limitation.

A procedural amendment to the limitation provision in Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act applied to pending reassessment matters because limitation is ordinarily retrospective unless the claim had already become time-barred. Where the amended provision came into force before the earlier limitation period expired, reassessment proceedings remained within time. Separately, pre-revision notices issued before expiry of limitation under the unamended provision were sufficient to commence proceedings and preserve limitation. The stated ratio is that a procedural amendment to limitation applies to live claims, but cannot revive a claim already barred when it takes effect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which changed the starting point for limitation in escaped assessment proceedings, applied to reassessment proceedings pending on its commencement; (ii) Whether issuance of pre-revision notices before expiry of limitation under the unamended provision was sufficient to save limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which changed the starting point for limitation in escaped assessment proceedings, applied to reassessment proceedings pending on its commencement.

Analysis: Limitation is procedural in character and ordinarily operates retrospectively. An amendment to a limitation provision applies to pending and live claims on the date it comes into force, unless the claim had already become time-barred under the earlier law. Once the original period expires, a vested right arises against further proceedings, but no such vested right exists while the limitation period is still running. On the facts, the amended provision came into force before the pre-amendment limitation had expired in the relevant matters, and therefore governed the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The amended Section 16(1) applied, and the reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether issuance of pre-revision notices before expiry of limitation under the unamended provision was sufficient to save limitation.

Analysis: In the matters where pre-revision notices were issued before the expiry of limitation under the unamended provision, the reassessment proceedings were commenced within time. The later revised orders did not alter the fact that the proceedings had already been initiated within the permissible period. Accordingly, those proceedings remained valid even under the pre-amended limitation regime.

Conclusion: Issuance of pre-revision notices within time was sufficient to save limitation.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were held to be within limitation, and the writ petitions challenging them failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural amendment to a limitation provision applies retrospectively to pending claims, but it cannot revive a claim already barred when the amendment came into force.

---