Assessment orders quashed for limitation breach under Section 39 and invalid Section 40 proceedings without prior assessment

The HC set aside assessment orders dated 12.05.2023 for years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and consequential demand notices dated 20.05.2023 under Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The court held that audit assessment under Section 36 was barred by limitation period prescribed under Section 39, which had lapsed on 31.03.2021, 31.03.2022 and 31.03.2023 respectively. Additionally, assessment under Section 40 was invalid as no prior assessment existed under Sections 34-37, and mandatory "reason to believe" condition was not fulfilled or communicated to the petitioner in the notice dated 11.04.2023.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the assessment orders dated 12.05.2023 and consequential demand notices dated 20.05.2023 issued under Section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Act of 2003) for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 are valid and sustainable.

- Whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 39 of the Act of 2003 bars the issuance of the assessment notices and orders for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

- Whether the respondent authorities were justified in invoking Section 40 of the Act of 2003 for reassessment, given the absence of prior assessments under Sections 34, 35, 36, or 37 of the Act.

- Whether the notice dated 11.04.2023 was correctly issued under Section 40 of the Act of 2003 or was it an audit assessment under Section 36 of the Act of 2003, and the implications thereof.

- Whether the preconditions for invoking Section 40 of the Act of 2003, including the existence of 'reason to believe' that turnover had escaped assessment or was under-assessed, were fulfilled.

- Whether the typographical error in the notice regarding the applicable section affects the jurisdiction or validity of the assessment proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the assessment orders and demand notices under Section 40 of the Act of 2003

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 40 of the Act of 2003 empowers the prescribed authority to reassess a dealer's turnover if, after an assessment under Sections 34, 35, 36, or 37, there is reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment, been under-assessed, assessed at a lower rate, or wrongly allowed deductions or credits. The reassessment must be made within 8 years from the end of the relevant year. Section 35(2) provides for self-assessment where returns filed in prescribed manner and time are deemed accepted and assessment deemed completed. Section 39 bars assessments after 5 years from the end of the relevant year except where prosecution proceedings are initiated.

Precedents cited include Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that 'reason to believe' requires actual information and cannot be mere suspicion or arbitrary.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had filed returns under Section 35(2) of the Act of 2003, which are deemed accepted and assessment deemed completed. Therefore, reassessment under Section 40 is permissible only if there is a 'reason to believe' as stipulated. However, the notice dated 11.04.2023 indicated an audit assessment under Section 36, which is barred by limitation under Section 39 for years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The Court found that the notice did not specify any 'reason to believe' as required under Section 40 and was silent on the grounds for reassessment. The notice also referred to audit assessment under Section 36, not reassessment under Section 40, creating ambiguity.

Key Evidence and Findings: The notice dated 11.04.2023 was examined and found internally inconsistent: the subject referred to Section 40, but the body referred to audit assessment under Section 36. The petitioner's returns were filed timely and accepted under Section 35(2). There was no evidence of prior assessment under Sections 34, 35, 36, or 37 to justify reassessment under Section 40.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the petitioner's returns were deemed assessed under Section 35(2), reassessment under Section 40 requires 'reason to believe' which was not disclosed. The audit assessment under Section 36 was barred by limitation under Section 39. The notice and subsequent assessment orders failed to comply with the statutory preconditions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the notice was correctly issued under Section 40 and the reference to Section 36 was a typographical error. They contended that the limitation under Section 39 does not apply to reassessment under Section 40 and that the petitioner had not filed required 'C' Forms, justifying reassessment. The Court rejected this, holding that the notice did not disclose any 'reason to believe' and that the assessment was effectively an audit assessment barred by limitation.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the assessment orders and demand notices issued under Section 40 were without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The notice dated 11.04.2023 was not a valid notice under Section 40 due to absence of 'reason to believe' and internal inconsistencies.

Issue 2: Applicability of limitation period under Section 39 of the Act of 2003

Legal Framework: Section 39 bars assessments after 5 years from the end of the relevant year, except where prosecution proceedings are initiated. Section 40 allows reassessment within 8 years.

Court's Reasoning: The Court observed that the audit assessment under Section 36 was barred by limitation for years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The respondents' contention that limitation does not apply to reassessment under Section 40 was examined. However, since the reassessment was not validly initiated under Section 40 (due to absence of 'reason to believe'), the limitation under Section 39 was applicable to the audit assessment attempt.

Application to Facts: The petitioner's returns for the years in question were filed timely and deemed assessed under Section 35(2). The audit assessment under Section 36 was not initiated within the 5-year limitation period. The reassessment under Section 40 was invalid due to procedural defects.

Conclusion: The limitation period under Section 39 barred the audit assessment and the purported reassessment was invalid.

Issue 3: Whether the preconditions for invoking Section 40 were fulfilled

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 40 requires that reassessment can be made only if the dealer was assessed under Sections 34, 35, 36 or 37 and the authority has 'reason to believe' that turnover escaped assessment, was under-assessed, or wrongful deductions or credits were allowed. The 'reason to believe' must be based on information and not mere suspicion, as per Supreme Court precedents.

Court's Analysis: The Court noted that no prior assessment under Sections 34, 35, 36 or 37 had been completed before invoking Section 40. The notice did not disclose any 'reason to believe'. The petitioner was informed only about an audit assessment under Section 36. The Court held that the preconditions for invoking Section 40 were absent.

Application to Facts: The petitioner's returns were deemed assessed under Section 35(2), but no audit assessment under Section 36 had been initiated within limitation. The notice did not specify any grounds or reasons for reassessment under Section 40.

Treatment of Arguments: The respondents' argument that failure to produce 'C' Forms justified reassessment was found insufficient without explicit 'reason to believe' in the notice.

Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under Section 40 was illegal and unsustainable.

Issue 4: Effect of typographical error in notice regarding applicable section

Legal Framework: Jurisdictional validity depends on compliance with statutory requirements, including proper invocation of relevant provisions.

Court's Reasoning: The Court observed that the notice's first paragraph referred to Section 36 (audit assessment), while the subject referred to Section 40 (reassessment). The Court held that such inconsistency creates confusion and does not satisfy the requirement to specify the basis and grounds for assessment or reassessment.

Application: The error was not a mere technicality but affected the validity of the notice and subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion: The typographical error contributed to the invalidity of the notice and assessment orders.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The power under Section 40 of the Act is not unbridled and arbitrary which can be exercised by the Assessing Officer on his own will but, it has to fulfill certain preconditions and if the said pre-conditions are not fulfilled, the very initiations of the proceeding under Section 40 of the Act shall be illegal and not sustainable in law."

"The expression 'reason to believe' postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing officer; the forum of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the assessing officer."

"A reason cannot exist in vacuum. Somebody must form the belief that reason exists and looking at the manner in which the provision of Section 40 of the Act of 2003 is so couched, this Court is of the view that the assessing officer issuing the notice, should have reasons to believe that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed."

"The notice dated 11.04.2023, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be held to be one so issued for an assessment/re-assessment invoking the provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 2003."

"The audit assessment sought to be made, invoking the provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 2003, vide issuance of the notice dated 11.04.2023, was clearly barred by limitation."

"The assessment so made under Section 40 of the Act of 2003, vide the orders dated 12.05.2023 for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the consequential demand notices dated 20.05.2023, issued by the respondent no. 3 for the said years, would not be sustainable and accordingly, the same are set aside."

"The setting aside of the notice dated 11.04.2023 along with the assessment order dated 12.05.2023, under Section 40 of the Act of 2003; and the consequential demand notices would not prevent the respondents from invoking the provisions of Section 40 of the said Act to the extent, it is permissible to be so applied with regard to the returns involved in the present proceedings of the petitioner, by strictly complying with the pre-requisites mandated for invocation of the same."

---