2023 (9) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 to rectify errors apparent on the face of record. In the said notice, the respondent called upon the petitioner to submit details of purchase and sales of Soap, Tea dust and Match boxes which are taxable goods and directed / requested to furnish the purchase and sales details. 3. After about 6 years, another notice came to be issued on 23.06.2020 and on this occasion, it was proposed to revise assessment invoking Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act to which the petitioner filed its objections vide letter dated 01.07.2020. Thereafter, yet another notice dated 30.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner, to which the petitioner responded vide letter dated 13.01.2021 wherein it was inter alia submitted that the notice itself was bad as being barred by limitation. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order of assessment was made vide order dated 05.02.2021. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be a notice for reassessment and thus within the period prescribed for reassessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, nevertheless the issuance of notice after a slumber of over 6 years thereafter which contains firm proposals would still be bad as the delay is arbitrary and unreasonable which would vitiate the proceedings. 7. Now before proceeding further it may be relevant to note that it has been held on more than one occasion that the limitation of six years from the date of assessment 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: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme... 25. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the writ court would not entertain the writ application questioning validity of a notice only, particularly, when the writ petitioner would have an effective remedy under the Act itself. This case, however, poses a different question. The revisional authority, being a creature of the statute, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, would not be able to determine as to what would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21(1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment." (emphasis supplied) 9.1. A reading of the above judgment would show that it is for this Court to decide as to what would constitute "reasonable time" for taking actions or passing order in the absence of statutory prescription of limitation. 10. It may also be relevant to note that this Court has also held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt considered the delay of fifteen (15) years from issuance of a show cause notice and thirteen (13) years after a hearing for fresh proceedings had 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 time." (emphasis supplied) (iii) Kanthimathy Estate vs. The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes i n W .P.(MD)Nos.3056 of 2016 etc., batch : "7. It is thus clear that a dealer is required to statutorily maintain and preserve books of accounts and all documents connected a....