TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground of unreasonable delay. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner society was registered under Cooperative Societies Act and involved in sales of certain essential commodities such as soap, Tea dust and Match boxes etc., to Public Distribution Shops (hereinafter referred to as "PDS") in and around Gingee. The sales made to PDS is stated to be exempt under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax. For the assessment year 2010-11, a deemed assessment was made under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "TNVAT Act") vide order dated 29.04.2011. Thereafter, a notice dated 23.07.2014 was issued apparently invoking Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, a provision meant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of reassessment is not hit by limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, nevertheless the respondent after having chosen to issue notice on 23.07.2014 went into slumber for almost 6 years before the second notice came to be issued on 23.06.2020, the above delay is unreasonable and therefore, the consequential order of assessment is unsustainable. 4. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that notice dated 27.03.2014 though makes a reference to Section 84 of the TNVAT Act is only a case of misquoting of the provision and a closer look at notice would clearly show it did not intend to rectify any error apparent, instead it intended to make reassessment thus the notice is traceable to Section 27 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act is only for the purpose of initiation of reassessment. Once the reassessment proceeding is initiated within the prescribed limitation, the fact that it is completed after the prescribed period would not by itself render the proceeding barred by limitation. In other words, there is no limitation statutorily prescribed for completing reassessment. 8. It is trite law that wherever limitation has not been prescribed for taking any action or passing any orders, it has been consistently held that action ought to be taken or orders ought to be passed within a reasonable time. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: (i)State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in (2007) 11 SCC 363, wherein question arose as to what would constitute a "reasonable period" for exercising revisional jurisdiction in the absence of limitation provided under the Act and whether it could be left to the statutory authorities to decide the same. It was held the authorities under the Act being creatures of the statute would not be able to determine the same. Thus, it is for this Court in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to determine what would constitute reasonable period for passing orders under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhatinda , wherein it was held as under: "19. .........
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made beyond reasonable period and thereby suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgments: (i) J.M.Baxi and Co. Vs. UOI reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T. 285 (Mad): "16. In the order of adjudication dated 07.01.2000, there is nothing to indicate as to what transpired from 23.5.1995 up to 07.01.2000, except for two dates. One is a letter dated 23.10.1999 where the appellant sought an injury to be inflicted upon them voluntarily, reminding the Department of the pendency of the show cause notice. The next date is 04.01.2000 when a personal hearing took place. Therefore, the order of adjudication certainly had not taken place within a reasonable period. Though the statute does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been initiated by the revenue. This was also a case where the proceedings had been consigned to the call book. The petitioner in that matter succeeded on the ground that the inordinate delay had not been justified by the revenue. 29. In Transworld Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of India (381 ELT 178) a learned single Judge of this Court, and in Surendralal Girdharilal Mehta v. Union of India (W.P. No. 322 of 2015 dated 17.05.2018) the Calcutta High Court once again reiterated the settled position that an authority exercising power under the Statute can engage in an action that has the effect of disturbing the rights of a citizen only within the time stipulated and where such limitation was not stipulated, within a reasonable ti....