TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment orders in these four writ petitions are different. The four assessment years covered by these four writ petitions are 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. As the Assessment Years are different, obviously numerical values are also different. 4. In the previous hearing, on 22.07.2019, inter alia with the intention of narrowing down the issue in these writ petitions, proceedings were recorded by this Court and the same read as follows: 2. Central theme of these four writ petitions or in other words, the core issue is limitation. 3. In these four writ petitions, which arise under 'Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006)' hereinafter be referred to as 'TNVAT Act' for brevity, the Assessment Years, which form subject matter of these four writ petitions are 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. Owing to proviso to Section 22(2) of TNVAT Act, deemed assessment date for all these four Assessment Years is 30.06.2012 (30th day of June 2012). There is no disputation or disagreement in this regard. 5. Revisional notice was issued with regard to these four Assessment Years on 27.09.2018 and revised Assessment Orders came to be passed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Wing on 16.04.2018 are prior to 30.06.2018, the revisional notice on 27.09.2018 and the impugned revised assessment order on 30.05.2019 are after the date on which six years limitation period elapsed. 8. Today, the SGP/learned Revenue Counsel i.e., State Counsel contended that assessment is a continuing process and inspection by the Enforcement Wing on 16.12.2016, and the report given by the Enforcement Wing on 16.04.2018 should be deemed to be part of assessment proceedings and therefore, that will save limitation. In other words, learned Revenue/State Counsel does not dispute that if revisional notice and date of impugned orders i.e., 27.09.2018 and 30.05.2019 are taken, the impugned orders are barred by six years. Saying so, learned SGP wanted this Court to construe dates of inspection/report of/given by Enforcement Wing as reckoning dates to arrive at dates on which limitation stood arrested. 9. Therefore, the neat question, which falls for consideration in these four writ petitions is whether inspection by the Enforcement Wing Official on 16.12.2016 and the report given by the Enforcement Wing Official on 16.04.2018 can be construed as 'determination' by adopting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, these judgments and the principles thereunder do not help the Revenue in the instant case as those are cases where different stages of assessment and the time frames fixed for the same where under consideration. For instance, in Arulmurugan case, the neat question, which Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed itself to is whether an appellate authority can entertain C form declarations filed by a registered dealer at the appellate stage either under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or the Rules made thereunder in the light of time limit prescribed under Rule 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Source for this rule is traceable to Section 8(4) of Central Sales Tax Act. Be that as it may, suffice to say that this is with regard to part/stage of assessment proceedings and not a case where limitation is prescribed for determining the assessment by revision. 13. This takes us to the term 'determine' occurring in Section 27(1)(a) of TNVAT Act. 14. Before that, it may be necessary to have a bird's eye view of what the term 'Assessing Authority' means. Learned State Counsel drawing the attention of this Court to Section 2(5) of TN....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terfere. (Sroud)' 18. A perusal of the above reveals that the most relevant explanation of the term 'determine' in the factual setting and contextual backdrop of cases on hand, is 'proceeded to assess and determine would not lead to different consequences or result'. Interestingly, this explanation in the Law Lexicon has been given by drawing inspiration from Yengar and Sons case being S.T.Officer V. Yengar and Sons reported in AIR 1970 SC 311, which has been referred to in the P.Ramanatha Aiyar The Law Lexicon- Second Edition. Therefore, the term 'determine' even as used in the context of fiscal law statute and even in the basis of judgments/case laws pressed into service by learned State Counsel would necessarily mean that the respondent should proceed to assess. What is of importance is proceeding to assess is qua writ petitioner dealer, as alluded to supra. In the considered view of this Court, 'proceeding to assess' qua writ petitioner dealer occurred only on 27.09.2018, when the revisional notice was issued. Therefore, taking the date of revisional notice as the reckoning date, it is clearly after six years from the date of assessment had....