Limitation and valid service requirements controlled reassessment; notices issued after expiry could not sustain the assessment.

Reassessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax regime was treated as invalid because the statutory limitation period under Section 27 had expired before the later notices were issued. A notice said to have been sent by ordinary post was not valid service under Rule 19(c), so it could not sustain the reassessment. Notices issued later by registered post were also ineffective because they were issued after the five-year period had lapsed. The reassessment proceedings and consequential orders were therefore time-barred and could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment and consequential orders for the assessment year 2010-2011 were barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and whether the notice allegedly issued by ordinary post satisfied the prescribed mode of service under Rule 19(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.

Analysis: The prescribed period for completing the reassessment expired on 30.06.2018. The first notice stated to have been issued on 27.02.2018 was sent only by ordinary post and was therefore not a valid service in terms of Rule 19(c). The subsequent notices issued on 14.12.2020 and 16.02.2021 were by registered post, but they were issued after expiry of the five-year limitation period under Section 27. Once the statutory period had lapsed, the assessment could not be reopened or concluded on the basis of those later notices.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and the impugned orders were held to be time-barred and invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment proceedings must be initiated and completed within the statutory limitation period, and notice must be served in the mode prescribed by the Rules; a notice issued beyond limitation or not served as required cannot sustain the assessment.

---