Limitation for penalty proceedings requires action within a reasonable statutory benchmark, invalidating delayed notices despite alleged non-cooperation.

Limitation for tax penalty proceedings is examined as a jurisdictional issue that may support a writ challenge to a show-cause notice without requiring exhaustion of statutory remedies. The notes explain that, even where the penalty provision contains no express limitation period, proceedings must be initiated and completed within a reasonable time. An analogous five-year period applicable to original and escaped assessments is identified as the appropriate benchmark. Departmental requests for documents or alleged non-cooperation do not extend that period where proceedings could be completed on available material. A penalty notice issued after the reasonable period is described as liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging a penalty show-cause notice as barred by limitation was maintainable; (ii) Whether penalty proceedings initiated under Section 45A beyond a reasonable period were time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging a penalty show-cause notice as barred by limitation was maintainable.

Analysis: A challenge founded on limitation raises a jurisdictional issue. The absence of an express limitation period in the penalty provision did not require the assessee to pursue the statutory process before invoking writ jurisdiction where the notice was alleged to be ex facie delayed.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the notice on the ground of limitation was maintainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty proceedings initiated under Section 45A beyond a reasonable period were time-barred.

Analysis: Although Section 45A prescribed no express period, penalty proceedings had to be commenced and completed within a reasonable time. The five-year period governing original and escaped assessments under the statutory scheme supplied the appropriate benchmark. For assessment year 2011-12, that period expired on 31.03.2017, whereas the penalty notice was issued only on 20.12.2018. Earlier requests for documents and alleged non-cooperation could not preserve limitation, since the Department could proceed on available material.

Conclusion: The penalty notice was issued beyond the reasonable period and was liable to be quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The limitation-based jurisdictional objection invalidated the delayed initiation of penalty proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute provides no limitation for penalty proceedings, they must nevertheless be initiated and completed within a reasonable period determined with reference to analogous limitation periods in the statutory scheme; departmental inaction cannot be justified by the assessee's alleged non-cooperation where proceedings could be concluded on available material.

---