https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83048 Notices issued u/ss 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were valid. The time limitation for revising assessment orders is not an issue if a notice is issued in time. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving Section 27. According to the proviso to Section 22(2), assessment years were deemed completed on 30.06.2012. Any revision proceedings had to be completed within six years for deemed assessments u/s 27. Mentioning the wrong provision or not mentioning it does not invalidate an order if the authority had requisite jurisdiction. The 23.07.2014 notices, though erroneously mentioning Section 84, were intended for revision u/s 27(1)(a). The assessments completed on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021 were within the limitation period prescribed u/s 27(1)(a). The writ petitions were dismissed. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83048 Notices issued u/ss 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were valid. The time limitation for revising assessment orders is not an issue if a notice is issued in time. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving Section 27. According to the proviso to Section 22(2), assessment years were deemed completed on 30.06.2012. Any revision proceedings had to be completed within six years for deemed assessments u/s 27. Mentioning the wrong provision or not mentioning it does not invalidate an order if the authority had requisite jurisdiction. The 23.07.2014 notices, though erroneously mentioning Section 84, were intended for revision u/s 27(1)(a). The assessments completed on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021 were within the limitation period prescribed u/s 27(1)(a). The writ petitions were dismissed. Highlights VAT / Sales Tax Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:53:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83048