TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 942
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3160680798/2012-13' (hereinafter 'impugned orders' in plural and 'impugned order' in singular for the sake of convenience and clarity) have been called in question in the captioned writ petitions. 4. To be noted this is the second round of litigation. 5. Learned counsel commenced by saying that the impugned orders are clearly vitiated by limitation as the same are beyond six years from the date of assessment. To be noted, deemed assessment with regard to first impugned order was on 31.03.2012 and deemed assessment with regard to second impugned order was on 31.03.2013. Therefore, six years elapsed qua first impugned on 31.03.2018 and qua second impugned order on 31.03.2019. In my considered view, learned counsel cannot even be heard to make this submission on limitation as the same has been raised in the previous round of litigation and the same has been conclusively decided by another Hon'ble single Judge of this Court vide a common order made in W.P.Nos.2793, 2797, 2798 and 2800 of 2020 dated 02.11.2020. A scanned reproduction of the order is as follows: ORDER The petitioner challenges orders of assessment passed in terms of the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter Oxford English Dictionary). 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 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have tabulated the materials filed by the assessee in the first instance and compare the same with the requirements of the aforesaid Rule and thereafter come to a conclusion as to whether the Rule stands satisfied. This exercise has not been done and the Officer merely rejects the petitioner's contention on the assumption that there is a failure to produce documentary evidence in support of the claim of sales/returns. 9. I am of the view that the exercise of reconciliation has not been conducted in the manner as required by law. The impugned assessments are thus set aside. The petitioner will appear before the Assessing Officer on Monday, the 7th December, 2020 at 10.30 a.m., without awaiting any further notice in this regard, with all relevant particulars in support of its claim of sales returns and orders of assessment de novo on this aspect shall be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from 07.12.2020, in accordance with law. 10. These Writ Petitions are disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 6. There is no disputation or disagreement that the above order of Hon'ble single Judge has been given legal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I now revert to the case on hand. 11. With regard to the case on hand, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that on 07.12.2020, the writ petitioner's representative went over to the office of the respondent, but they were asked to go away owing to Corona virus pandemic. Learned counsel submits that objections have been sent by way of registered post with acknowledgement due, the same have been duly received by the respondent on 10.03.2021 at 04.28 p.m, but the impugned orders have been made on 12.03.2021 without considering the objections. Postal track consignment download (hard copy) placed before this Court reads as follows: 12. Ms.Amirta Dinakaran, learned Revenue counsel accepts notice on behalf of sole respondent. Learned counsel adverting to the impugned order submits that sufficient opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner and in support of her contention, learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the tabulation which talks about nature of opportunity given. It appears that opportunity has in fact been given to the writ petitioner, but there are lacunae, which this Court is able to see. They are, the impugned order does not say what trans....