Deemed assessment and limitation under VAT law depend on complete returns; disputed factual questions are not finally resolved in writ jurisdiction.

Limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 applies only after a deemed assessment under section 22(2). Where returns are not filed, or are incomplete, incorrect, or unsupported by prescribed documents and proof of payment, section 22(4) applies and the Assessing Authority must make a best judgment assessment after the year ends, so the deemed assessment protection is unavailable. The court also noted that whether returns were complete and correct is a disputed factual question that cannot be conclusively decided in writ proceedings under Article 226. On that basis, the limitation challenge failed and the assessment proceedings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices and assessment orders were barred by limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the footing that the returns were deemed to have been accepted under section 22(2), and whether the challenge could be examined in writ jurisdiction when the factual dispute was whether the returns were incomplete or incorrect.

Analysis: Limitation under section 27 applies only where there has already been a deemed assessment under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Where the dealer has not filed returns, or the returns filed are incomplete or incorrect, or are unsupported by the prescribed documents and proof of payment, the case falls within section 22(4) and the Assessing Authority is required to make a best judgment assessment after the close of the year. In such a situation, the protection of deemed assessment is unavailable. The question whether the returns were complete and correct depends on disputed facts and cannot be conclusively determined in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The limitation objection under section 27 was rejected, the impugned assessment proceedings were upheld, and the writ petitions failed.

---