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 improper tax notice, upholds statutory limitations and due process</h1> <h3>Tvl. Acer India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commercial Tax Officer GD-III, Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry</h3> Tvl. Acer India Pvt. Ltd Versus Commercial Tax Officer GD-III, Commercial Taxes Department, Puducherry - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to notice dated 04.12.2020 under the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967.2. Validity of re-computation of turnover and denial of exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. Revision of assessment order dated 10.08.2007.4. Legality of the notice issued after the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act.5. Interpretation of Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding the period of limitation for offences.Analysis:The petitioner contested a notice dated 04.12.2020 concerning the period 2003-2004 under the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. The original assessment order dated 10.08.2007 confirmed the accounts and turnover reported, including the claim of concessional tax rate supported by Form 'C'. However, the respondents later questioned the authenticity of the 'C' forms submitted during the original assessment, leading to the impugned notice in December 2020. The notice sought to revise the turnover, deny exemption claimed, and collect differential tax with interest, contravening the limitation period under Section 18 of the Act, which expired in 2009, while the notice was issued in 2020.The notice alleged fraudulent correction of 'C' forms by the petitioner to claim tax exemption, proposing a substantial tax amount along with interest. The court found the officer's actions to revise the original assessment and recompute turnover after eleven years impermissible and beyond the statutory limitation period. The court emphasized that the re-determination of turnover and denial of exemption were set aside due to legal irregularities and misinterpretations of the law.The respondents argued that the purpose of the turnover re-determination was to proceed against the petitioner under Section 49 of the Act, which deals with penalties for offences. They referred to Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, outlining limitation periods for various offences based on the severity of punishment. However, the court noted that the notice's premise of criminal liability was flawed as the determination of turnover escapement required by Section 468(2) was not validly made within the prescribed time limit under Section 18 of the Act, rendering the notice legally untenable.Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notice, allowed the Writ Petition, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petition, highlighting the absence of costs. The judgment clarified the legal constraints on revising assessments, statutory limitation periods, and the interplay between tax laws and criminal liability provisions, ensuring adherence to legal principles and due process in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
