2021 (12) TMI 1376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Orders dated 31.12.2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2016-2017 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Assessment Orders are unsustainable inasmuch as the respondent has included the exempted turnover and the interstate sales turnover for demanding the tax from the petitioner for these Assessment Years. That apart, it is submitted that the demand has been proposed in the notices and confirmed in the impugned Assessment Orders based on the date captured from the website of the Customs Department and therefore, on this score, there is a violation in the light of the decision of this Court in JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Vs. The Commercial Ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7 are concerned. 6. He also submits that as far as the Assessment Year 2011-2012 is concerned, Section 27(1) of the Act was amended vide Section 6(1) of the Fifth Amendment Act 23 of 2012, effective from a date to be notified as 19th June, 2012 by G.O.Ms.No.82, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1) Department, 18.06.2012. It is submitted that for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012, the limitation would have expired on 31.10.2018 (six years from the date of assessment), whereas, the notice for revising Assessment under Section 27 of the Act was issued first on 22.06.2018 and thereafter and therefore, the revision of assessment is barred under law. 7. Opposing the prayer in these Writ Petitions, the learned Additional Government Pleader ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... years in case of escapement of turnover as is contemplated in Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the demand confirmed for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 is time barred is liable to be rejected. 11. As far as the merits of the case for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the plea, particularly in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been negligent in not filing reply to the notices dated 22.06.2018 either within the time stipulated in the notices dated 22.06.2018 or after the expiry of time sought for by the petitioner by letter dated 19.07.2018 was granted. 12. The only fault lies in the entire proceedings is that the respond....