Limitation and speaking order requirements bar stale revisional tax action and justify remand for fresh consideration.

Revisional proceedings under the TVAT Act were treated as time-barred where the revisional notice was issued more than five years after assessment, and that limitation objection was recognised as a substantive ground against the action. The revisional order was also found defective because it did not deal with the petitioner's objections on discounts and other factual issues in a reasoned manner, making it a non-speaking order. The impugned notice was set aside and the matter was remanded to the revisional authority for fresh consideration by a speaking order after hearing all objections, including jurisdictional ones.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional notice and action initiating revision after more than five years were barred by limitation under the TVAT Act, 2004. (ii) Whether the revisional order, being non-speaking and not dealing with the petitioner's objections, required interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional notice and action initiating revision after more than five years were barred by limitation under the TVAT Act, 2004.

Analysis: The assessment had been completed in 2015, while the notice initiating revisional action was issued in 2020. The statutory scheme relied upon in the judgment treated assessments beyond the prescribed five-year period as time-barred, and the court recorded that the notice was issued after the expiry of that period. The limitation issue was noted as a substantive objection available to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was accepted as a valid ground against the impugned revisional action.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order, being non-speaking and not dealing with the petitioner's objections, required interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned revisional order did not address the petitioner's objections on discounts and related factual issues in a reasoned manner. The order was treated as lacking proper application of mind and not constituting a speaking order. The court therefore declined to enter into the merits and directed reconsideration by the revisional authority after affording the petitioner opportunity to raise all objections, including jurisdictional objections.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for fresh decision by a speaking order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional notice was set aside and the matter was sent back to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority acts after the prescribed limitation period and passes a non-speaking order without dealing with the material objections of the affected party, the proceeding cannot be sustained and fresh consideration by a reasoned order is warranted.

---