AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and on 14.02.2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by giving a direction to the second respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks with further direction to the petitioner to give reply within two weeks thereafter. This Court has also directed the second respondent to pass orders within eight weeks thereafter, based on the reply filed by the petitioner. As directed by this Court, the second respondent issued show cause notice for four years i.e., 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 on 19.05.2014. The petitioner filed their reply on 30.05.2014. Based on the reply, the second respondent passed orders on 01.09.2014, demanding 12.50% VAT based on mere surmises and conjectures. The petitioner filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority. Those appeals are still pending with an order of interim stay. The Government of Puducherry issued a notification in G.O.Ms.No.68/F2/2011 dated 31.12.2011, notifying that VAT shall be collected on sale of LPG at 1% for domestic purpose and 3% for industrial purpose. The petitioner firm filed Form-CC pertaining to the assessment years 2011-2012 to 2014-2015. The second respondent issued notices dated 29.01.2016,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le of LPG cylinder domestic use as well as commercial use. The Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings by order dated 22.08.2011 clarified that LPG for domestic use taxable at 1% and commercial use at 12.5%. The then Assessing Officer passed assessment order. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings. The petitioner did not disclose the fact that they filed the above appeal, while they filed their objections to the notice of proposal for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 22.12.2011, granted interim stay till the disposal of the appeal. During the pendency of the tax appeal, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.21718 of 2012 to stay all further proceedings on the file of the Assessing Officer in proceedings dated 22.08.2011. In view of the interim stay granted by the Appellate Tribunal and in view of the pendency of the above writ petition, the Assessing Officer has not taken further action for the remaining assessment years. However, after pronouncement of the order of this Court in W.P.No.21718 of 2012, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs comes to Rs. 36,83,074/-. The assessment proceedings had already been started by issuing summons/notices. The delay in passing the order of assessment is only due to the conduct of the petitioner in giving irrelevant reply whenever notice/pre assessment notices were issued. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows: The relevant assessment years are 2011-12 to 2014-15. The petitioner has filed their returns for all these assessment years within time. However, the Assessing Officer did not pass the order of assessment within time. Section 24(5) of the Puducherry VAT Act, 2007, specifically bars an assessment for any year after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return relates. In this case, the very pre assessment notice was issued only on 28.05.2018 for all assessment years. Even the said notice itself is time barred and therefore, the petitioner is not duty bound to answer the said notice, which is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. In support of the above said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.Nos.8059 to 8061 of 2017 dated 27.07.2017....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax liability under this Act by self-assessment, reassessment and assessment by scrutiny and best judgment assessment;" b) Section 24(5) reads as follows: "24. Assessment of tax:- ..(5) Subject to sub-section (6) of this section, no assessment under this section for any year shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return under this Act relates." Chapter IV of the said Act deals with assessment. Section 24(5) stipulates that no assessment under Section 24 for any year shall be made after a period of three years from the end of the year to which the return relates. 13. A careful perusal of the above provision under Section 24(5) would show that the term "assessment" alone is used and not an "order of assessment". The term "assessment" is defined under Section 2(e) as extracted supra. It means determination of business turnover of a dealer in prescribed manner to ascertain the tax liability under the said Act by self assessment, re-assessment and assessment by scrutiny and best judgment assessment. Therefore, the term "assessment" cannot be construed only as an order of assessment and on the other hand, the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he word 'revise' cannot be understood to mean pass an order in 'revision'. Revision is a legal process and does not denote the final act of passing an order terminating the legal process. The legal process consists of various steps such as calling for the records of the proceedings, making an enquiry by the revisional authority or causing an enquiry to be made thereon, and passing final orders thereon as the revisional authority thinks fit. Therefore, the entire process commencing from the calling of the records and ending with the passing of the final order has been termed as revision in the said Section. Each one of the steps in the process is a revisional process. Therefore, if any one of the steps in the process has been initiated within the period of limitation, there is no further limitation on the exercise of the power." 15. In another decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1980) 46 STC 151 Madras, The State of Tamil Nadu vs. K.O.Mohamed Sulaiman and Co., it is observed at paragraph Nos.21 to 24 as follows: "21. In Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam v. Sudarsanam Iyengar & Sons [1970] 25 S.T.C. 252, the parallel provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of assessment should be made within that period. As the notice was given in December, 1965, for the year 1962-63 within the period of three years, the proceedings were held to be in time. 23. This decision of the Supreme Court came up for application in Anglo French Textiles Limited, Pondicherry v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai W.P. Nos. 3939 to 3941 of 1971 decided on 14th March, 1972 (Madras High Court), the judgment dated 14th March, 1972. One of the arguments advanced in that case was that in the Kerala Act there was no provision similar to Section 16(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act and that this would make a difference to the applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court. Section 16(4) provides that the time during which the proceedings for assessment remained stayed under the orders of a civil court or other competent authority should be excluded for computing the period of limitation for assessment on the escaped turnover. It was held that this provision had been brought in ex abundanti cautela and that the decision of the Supreme Court would apply, so that, so long as the proceedings were pending within the statutory p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ionary). It is suggested that the word "determine" was employed in Rule 33 with a definite intention to set the limit within which the final order in the matter of assessment should be made, the limit being three years. We find it difficult to accept that in the context of sales tax legislation the use of the words "proceed to assess" and "determine" would lead to different consequences or result. In this connection the words which follow the word "determine" in Rule 33 must be accorded their due signification. The words "assess the tax payable" cannot be ignored and it is clearly meant that the assessment has to be made within the period prescribed. Assessment is a comprehensive word and can denote the entirety of proceedings which are taken with regard to it. It cannot and does not mean a final order of assessment alone unless there is some thing in the context of a particular provision which compels such a meaning being attributed to it. In our judgment despite the phraseology employed in Rule 33 the principle which has been laid in other cases relating to analogous provisions in sales tax statutes must be followed as otherwise the purpose of a provision like Rule 33 can be comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to a case of reassessment proceedings where there was an original assessment in which some turnover has escaped assessment, and that it could not be read in any way restricting or limiting the scope of powers of section 16. This judgment was followed in two other cases by another Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Mohamed Sulaiman & Co. [1980] 46 STC 151 and in Lakshmanaswami Chettiar & Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 327. The contention that the limitation of five years will have to be calculated with reference to the reassessment order made on 18th November, 1975, is therefore untenable." 18. In W.P.No.36497 of 2006, etc., dated 30.04.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after following the decision of the Supreme court reported in 1969 (2) SCC 396, The Sales Tax Officer vs Messrs Sudarsanam Iyengar and Sons and the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1982(49) STC 58, Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., v. The State of Tamilnadu, has observed that the reassessment proceedings therein were within the limitation period, if the proceedings for reassessment were initiated for commencement prior to the expiry of the limitation period. 19. Perusal of the a....