Reasoned reassessment required: limitation objection failed, but the tax order was set aside for inadequate merits analysis.

Limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be sustained as a ground to challenge the reassessment, in light of earlier binding decisions on the scope of the provision, so the limitation objection was rejected. However, the reassessment order did not contain a proper discussion of the revised notice, the taxpayer's objections, or a reasoned finding supporting the enhanced escaped turnover. For want of a clear merits determination, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on the revised proposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the reassessment on the ground of limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be sustained. (ii) Whether the impugned order could stand when the merits of the revised notice and the taxpayer's objections were not properly dealt with.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the reassessment on the ground of limitation under section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could be sustained.

Analysis: The limitation objection was examined in the light of earlier binding decisions on the scope of section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. On that basis, the objection was not accepted.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge was rejected and was not available to the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order could stand when the merits of the revised notice and the taxpayer's objections were not properly dealt with.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded the revised notice and the reply, but it did not contain a proper discussion on the merits of the revised proposal or a clear finding explaining how the enhanced escaped turnover was sustained. The absence of a reasoned adjudication on merits required interference so that the controversy could be freshly considered.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was not disturbed on limitation, but the adjudication was reopened for a fresh decision on the merits of the revised proposal.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment order that fails to give a clear and reasoned determination on the merits of a revised notice cannot be sustained, even if the limitation objection is rejected.

---