2019 (8) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the petitioner in these writ petitions is that, though the first notice issued under Section 7-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, was within the period of five years from the end of the respective assessment years, the process of re-assessment itself should have been completed within the period of five years as prescribed under Rule 43-E (1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939. On this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray Vs. CIT ((1992) 102 CTR 188 ). The learned counsel petitioner further submitted that the term "re-assessment" should be construed to the effect that the entire re-assessment proceedings should be conclud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e holding that the term "assessment" will denote the entirety of proceedings which are taken with regard to such assessment, the Apex Court has held as follows: "4.......Now in view of the previous decisions the principle is firmly established that assessment proceedings under the Sales-Tax Act must be held to be pending from the time the proceedings are initiated until they are terminated by a final order of assessment. The distinguishing feature on which emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the respondent is that the language employed in Rule 33 is such as to lead to only one conclusion that the final determination of the turnover which has escaped assessment and the assessment of the tax have to be done within three years. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... analogous provisions in sales-tax statute must be followed as otherwise the purpose of a provision like Rule 33 can be completely defeated by taking certain collateral proceedings and obtaining a stay order as was done in the present case or by unduly delaying assessment proceedings beyond a period of three years. 5. It is undoubtedly open to the legislature or the rule making authority to make its intention quite clear that on the expiry of a specified period order of assessment can be made. Then the taxing authorities would certainly debarred from completing the assessment beyond the period prescribed as was the case in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act 1922; but such is not the case here and we would hold that....