Reassessment limitation and proof of notice service are essential before sustaining VAT assessment proceedings.

Reassessment under the Tamil Nadu VAT framework, applied through section 9(2) of the CST Act, must be initiated within the six-year limitation period under section 27(2), computed from the deemed assessment date. Timely service of the foundational notice or assessment order is essential to show compliance with limitation, and an unproved or belated dispatch is insufficient. The material also indicates that an assessment cannot be sustained where the record does not establish service of notice and a fair opportunity before the final order. The text emphasises that the revenue must prove both limitation compliance and proper procedural service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the assessment for assessment year 2007-2008 could be sustained in the absence of proof of service of notice and opportunity.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings for assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The provisions of the State VAT law applied to the proceedings by virtue of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 prescribed a six-year limitation period for reassessment from the date of assessment. The deemed assessment date for the relevant years was 30.06.2012 under Section 22(2). The Court also applied the earlier view that the six-year limitation governs proceedings under Section 22(4) as well. On the materials placed, the notice relied on for assessment year 2006-2007 did not satisfactorily prove receipt within limitation, and the later reminder was beyond the six-year period. For assessment year 2007-2008, there was no proof of service of the earlier assessment order or notices within limitation.

Conclusion: The proceedings for both assessment years were not shown to be within the statutory period of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment for assessment year 2007-2008 could be sustained in the absence of proof of service of notice and opportunity.

Analysis: The later assessment order for assessment year 2007-2008 did not refer to any prior notice, and the record did not establish service of the earlier assessment order. In the circumstances, the validity of the assessment could not be upheld without proof that the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity in the manner required by the assessment procedure.

Conclusion: The assessment for assessment year 2007-2008 also warranted interference.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were set aside and the writ petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute requires reassessment within a fixed limitation period computed from deemed assessment, the revenue must establish timely service of the foundational notice or order and cannot sustain the assessment on an unproved or belated dispatch alone.

---