TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes assessment revision beyond time limit, petitioner's writ petition justified</h1> <h3>Ex. R.S. Rubber Products Versus The State Tax Officer</h3> Ex. R.S. Rubber Products Versus The State Tax Officer - TMI Issues:Challenge to impugned revision of assessment order based on limitation under Section 16(1)(a) of Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 r/w Section 9 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Analysis:1. The petitioner challenged the revision of assessment order dated 21.02.2019, arguing that the respondent initiated the proceedings beyond the five-year period from the original assessment, invoking Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. The respondent contended that the petitioner claimed exemption through an 'F' Form for the whole year, which was contrary to the requirement of filing the form monthly as per Rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax Rules 1957. The respondent also argued that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal instead of resorting to a writ petition.3. The Court examined the impugned revision of assessment order under Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It noted that the original assessment was done on 12.06.2009, and the revision notice was issued on 09.04.2018, exceeding the five-year limit from the original assessment date.4. Referring to Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Court emphasized that any revision of assessment must occur within five years from the date of the original assessment order. Since the revision notice was issued beyond this period, the Court held that the revision proceedings were time-barred.5. Citing precedents like the State of Punjab v. Bhatina District Cooperative Milk P.Union Ltd. and M.U.A.Arumugaperumal and Sons v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer, the Court affirmed that a writ petition is maintainable when an order lacks jurisdiction or is barred by limitation. In this case, the Court concluded that the revision proceedings were indeed barred by the Law of Limitation.6. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned revision of assessment order dated 21.02.2019 for the assessment year 2006-2007, allowing the writ petition and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
