TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; (ii) whether the notices issued mentioning Section 84, instead of Section 27, were invalid or without jurisdiction.
Issue (i): whether the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Analysis: The assessment years were treated as deemed completed under Section 22(2), and the Court applied the principle that limitation is satisfied if the notice initiating reassessment is issued within time, even if the final order is passed later. On the facts, the notices issued in 2014 were held to be the operative initiation of reassessment, and those notices fell within the permissible period for revision under Section 27.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not barred by limitation and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): whether the notices issued mentioning Section 84, instead of Section 27, were invalid or without jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Court held that the substance of the notices showed a proposal for revision of assessment and levy of penalty for escaped turnover under Section 27(3), and that a wrong or mistaken reference to Section 84 did not defeat the proceedings where the authority otherwise had jurisdiction. The Court treated the reference to Section 84 as a typographical error and found that the notices were in substance issued under Section 27(1)(a).
Conclusion: The notices were not invalid for citation of the provision and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revised assessments failed, as the reassessment notices were held to be timely and legally effective despite the incorrect statutory reference.
Ratio Decidendi: For reassessment under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, limitation is met when the notice initiating revision is issued within the statutory period, and a mistaken reference to the wrong provision does not vitiate the proceedings if the substance of the notice and the authority's jurisdiction clearly support reassessment.
TaxTMI 
