TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee under the second defendant. The plaintiff's partnership accounts for the period from 1985-86 to 1993-94 were verified by the second defendant and an order of nil assessment was also made. However, a demand notice under form B-6 was sent calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 9,31,349/-. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed O.P.No.407 of 2000 before the Tamilnadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The case of the plaintiff before the Tribunal was that the order reopening the assessments was not served on it. The said contention was controverted by the authorities who claimed that the assessment order was served on the plaintiff on 24.05.1999 itself. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the authorities and dismissed the O.P. Chall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also dismissed. Review Application (MD)No.50 of 2007 also met the same fate. Thereafter, the present suit came to be laid for directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as damages with subsequent interest. The suit was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.09.2012. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court to reverse the decision of the trial Court and allow the appeal and decree the suit as prayed for. According to him, without any justification, concluded assessments were re-opened. The plaintiff was made to run literally from pil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation. It reads as under :- "50.Limitation for certain suits and prosecutions:- No suit shall be instituted against the Government and no suit, prosecution or other proceeding shall be instituted against any officer or servant of the Government in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under this Act, unless the suit, prosecution or other proceeding is instituted within six months from the date of the act complained of." The cause of action for the plaintiff arose on 11.05.2004. The plaintiff instead of filing a suit for damages within six months from the said date chose to file writ petition followed by writ appeal and review petition. In the review petition, the plaintiff pleaded that since his writ appeal was di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As per Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act, 1963, "period of limitation" means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule and "prescribed period" means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provision of the Limitation Act. According to Section 29(2), where any period of limitation has been prescribed for any suit or appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 shall apply only insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. But in M.P. Steel Corporation case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where Section ....