Limitation bars tax reassessment where notices are issued after expiry and the fraud-based remedy is not invoked properly.

Notices and assessment orders issued under section 29(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 were held time-barred because, even on the extended limitation assumption, the period expired in November 2017 and the proceedings were initiated only in 2019. The fraud objection did not save the action, as section 29(7) provides the specific mechanism for amendment in cases of fraud, wilful neglect, misrepresentation, or escaped turnover, and no proceeding was shown under that provision. Since the notices were issued under an inapposite provision after limitation had expired, the proceedings were without jurisdiction and fell within the recognised exception to the alternate remedy rule. The notices and assessment orders were set aside, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law if otherwise available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices and assessment orders issued under section 29(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 were barred by limitation under section 29(4), and whether the alleged fraud or escaped assessment justified recourse to section 29(7) or other supervisory powers.

Analysis: The assessment years in question fell within 2008-09 to 2010-11, and the annual statement for the latest year was required to be filed by 20 November 2011 under rule 40 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Even on the assumption that the extended six-year period applied, the limitation expired in November 2017, whereas the notices and consequent assessment orders were issued only in 2019. The objection based on fraud did not assist the respondents because section 29(7) specifically provides the mechanism for amendment of an assessment in cases of fraud, wilful neglect, misrepresentation, or escaped turnover, and no action was shown to have been taken under that provision. The Court also noted that the notices were expressly issued under section 29(2), which was not consistent with the statutory scheme once the limitation had expired. In these circumstances, the challenge fell within the recognised exception to the rule of alternate remedy, as the proceedings were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notices and assessment orders were held to be time-barred and were set aside, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law if otherwise available.

---