Statutory limitation for reassessment after remand must still be computed by excluding appellate and revisional pendency.

A reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was held to remain subject to the statutory limitation period even after remand, and the time spent in appeal and revisional proceedings had to be excluded only as expressly provided by Section 40. The court applied the seven-year reassessment limit for the relevant tax period and found that, on the admitted dates, the reassessment completed on 30.05.2018 was still beyond the outer limit after excluding pendency before appellate, revisional and Commissioner stages. The view that limitation restarted from the Commissioner's remand order was rejected, and the reassessment was treated as time-barred and without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment order was barred by limitation under Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the period spent in appeal and revisional proceedings had to be excluded while computing limitation.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a tax period from April 2007 to September 2007. The statutory scheme under Section 40(1) prescribed a seven-year limit for reassessment for the relevant tax period, and Section 40(3), as amended retrospectively, required exclusion of the time consumed in disposal of appeals and revisional proceedings. On the admitted dates, the reassessment made on 30.05.2018 was beyond the outer limit even after giving credit for the periods spent before the appellate, revisional, and Commissioner stages. The conclusion of the Single Judge that limitation would run only from the Commissioner's remand order was inconsistent with the statutory text and the governing principle that fresh reassessment after remand remains subject to limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment was time-barred and without jurisdiction; the limitation period had to be computed after excluding the pendency before the appellate and revisional authorities, and the impugned reassessment could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded, and the reassessment and consequential demand were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a fixed period for reassessment and expressly excludes time spent in appellate and revisional proceedings, reassessment after remand must still be completed within the statutory limit as extended by the excluded periods, failing which it is barred by limitation and jurisdictionally invalid.

---