Limitation and mismatch-based reassessment under VAT law: timely revision survived, but the assessment was remitted for fresh consideration.

Revision notice under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act was not barred by limitation because it was issued within the outer period counted from the deemed assessment date, so the limitation objection failed. However, an assessment based on mismatch between declared turnover and web portal data required reconsideration in light of the later mechanism developed for mismatch cases, and the court held that procedure could be applied mutatis mutandis to the taxpayer's case. The assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision notice and consequential reassessment were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. (ii) Whether the impugned assessment could be sustained where the demand was founded on web portal data and the matter required reconsideration in the light of the mechanism evolved for mismatch cases.

Issue (i): Whether the revision notice and consequential reassessment were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The notice was issued within the outer period reckoned from the deemed assessment date. The Court held that the initiation of revision proceedings on 10.10.2018 could not be treated as time barred, and the limitation objection based on Section 27(1) did not succeed on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge was rejected and was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment could be sustained where the demand was founded on web portal data and the matter required reconsideration in the light of the mechanism evolved for mismatch cases.

Analysis: The assessment was founded on mismatch between the declared turnover and the departmental web portal data. The Court relied on the later administrative mechanism for dealing with such discrepancies and held that the method evolved for resolving mismatch disputes could be applied to the petitioner's case mutatis mutandis. Since the impugned order required re-examination in that light, it was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the assessment order was annulled and the matter sent back for a fresh decision after notice and hearing, though the objection on limitation was negatived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment is initiated within time but the resulting demand rests on mismatch data, the assessment must be reconsidered with a fair opportunity to reconcile the discrepancy and follow the procedure adopted for such mismatch cases.

---