Court sets aside tax assessment beyond limitation period under DVAT Act, 2004. Order quashed, emphasizing limitation.

The court set aside the notice of default assessment of tax and interest under the DVAT Act, 2004, due to being beyond the statutory limitation period, which had expired by March 31, 2015. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the order was within limitation and emphasized that previous orders granting liberty did not extend the limitation period. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated January 15, 2021.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to notice of default assessment of tax and interest under DVAT Act, 2004
- Impugning the order on the ground of limitation

Analysis:

1. Challenge to notice of default assessment of tax and interest under DVAT Act, 2004:
The petitioner had approached the court challenging the vires of Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT Act, 2004, along with notices of default assessment of tax and interest. The earlier petition in a related matter was allowed in favor of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents passed a new order of default assessment, which was impugned in the present writ petition. The primary ground for challenging this order was that it was barred by limitation. The respondents defended the order, stating it was within limitation as per Section 34 of the DVAT Act. The court examined the relevant provisions and previous orders granting liberty to the respondents. The court noted that the impugned order was passed beyond the statutory limitation period, as it related to the year 2010-11, and the limitation had expired by March 31, 2015. The court found the contention of the respondents untenable and set aside the notice on the ground of limitation.

2. Impugning the order on the ground of limitation:
The court analyzed Section 34 of the DVAT Act, which sets out the limitation period for assessment and reassessment. The provision specifies a four-year limitation period, extendable to six years in cases of concealment or failure to disclose material particulars. The court observed that the impugned order, dated January 15, 2021, was clearly beyond the four-year limitation period for the relevant year. The court rejected the argument put forth by the respondents that the order was within limitation as per a different subsection of Section 34, emphasizing that the order was not in consequence of any decision requiring reassessment. The court held that the liberty granted in previous orders did not extend the limitation period beyond statutory limits. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated January 15, 2021.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation.

---