TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by a "Fast Track Team". Respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition forming the team issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices on 13.02.2012 proposing finalisation of assessment in the manner stated thereunder. The petitioner filed objections pointing out that the proposal, as above, was barred by limitation, with reference to the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Act. Section 17(6), inserted with effect from 01.04.1993, for the first time, provided for a time limit within which an assessment under the Act was required to be completed. Originally, the period for such finalisation was "4 years" and with effect from 31.03.2002, the period was substituted as "5 years". After filing an objection as above, the writ petitioner approached this Court seeking to challenge the notices on the ground of limitation. During the pendency of the writ petition, the proposals in the notices were finalised pursuant to Exts.P8 and P9 assessment orders. The petitioner has incorporated a challenge against those assessment orders also in the writ petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that: - i. The assessments for the years 2003-04 and 2004-05 ought to have been completed by 31.03.2009 and 31.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed, as held by the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S.G.Mehta, Income-tax Officer, and Another [(1963) 48 ITR 154]. 5. Per contra, Sri.Mayankutty Mather, the learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt.S.Parvathi for the respondents, would contend that:- i. The original dealer - the father of the writ petitioner, who died in the year 2006, had promptly filed the returns under Section 17(1) of the Act, for the respective assessment years. Therefore, according to him, the assessing authority had a duty to follow the mandate under Section 17(6) of the Act and finalise/complete the assessments within the period of five years from the expiry of the assessment year. When that be so, even on the face of the non obstante clause under Section 17D of the Act, the limitation under Section 17(6) of the Act would apply. ii. The extension of the period of limitation by various Finance Acts, including that of the year 2011, would not apply since the assessments were not pending on the prescribed dates. According to him, the Act visualised completion of assessment after insertion of Section 17(6) and therefore, unless it is shown that the assessments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r; (b) In the case of files relating to Special Circles, there shall be three Assistant Commissioners in the team, headed by a Deputy Commissioner. In the case of Ordinary Circles, the team shall be headed by an Assistant Commissioner and comprise three Commercial Tax Officers as members; (c) All files of the dealer pertaining to an assessment year shall be clubbed with assessment file and taken up for disposal; (d) No assessment completed by the teams shall be re-opened unless there is fresh receipt of materials pertaining to tax evasion; Provided that the assessment may be re-opened with the prior permission of the Commissioner; (e) The assessment shall be completed fairly by a summary proceeding; (f) The team shall be competent to offer reasonable concessions after recording the reasons thereof on the estimation of suppression of turnover on account of any offences detected against the dealer, and also on the interest payable up to a maximum of fifty per cent of that payable, in cases where the dealer offers immediate payment of the dues; (g) The hearings shall be open to public. The date and venue of the sitting sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors." Similarly, in Union of India v. City Bank [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 704], the Apex Court has held that when a statute does not prescribe a time limit for initiating an action, it needs to be done within a reasonable time. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1700 of 2021 has considered the issue with specific reference to the dictum in Betty Sebastian (supra), holding as under: - "4. Before us, although it is the submission of the learned Government Pleader, placing reliance on Betty Sebastian (Supra), and the judgment dated 24.10.2024 of this Court in ST. Rev. No.11 of 2021, which followed the judgment in Betty Sebastian (Supra), we find that even in the Betty Sebastian's case, the Division Bench had found that if there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the notice, the protection granted for the proceedings under Section 17D would not be available. In our view, to condone a delay of 14 years in issuing ....