2015 (10) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ms. Radhika Suri, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, for the appellant. G. R. Sethi and Varun Chadha for the respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 68(2) of the Punjab VATAct, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated March 1, 2013, annexure A1 passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, (in short, "the Tribunal") for the assessment year 199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the respondent-assessee is running a sugar mill and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and by-products from sugarcane. Assessment for the year 1997-98 was framed by the Assessing Authority vide order dated August 22, 2003, annexure A3, creating an additional demand of Rs. 22,72,798. Not satisfied with the order, the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt in Emkay Industries' case [2005] 139 STC 57 (P&H); [2004] 24 PHT 183 (P&H) held that the assessment was barred by limitation and that the assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to frame assessment. Consequently the appeal was allowed. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The point that arises f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment was not finalised by the Assessing Authority on July 4, 2002, i.e., after expiry of three years, the assessee received another notice for appearance and finalisation of the assessment. The notice which was received by the assessee on July 4, 2002 was challenged before this court wherein it was observed that when the return was filed, there was no limitation of three years for finalisat....