Allowed a writ petition challenging a time-barred re-assessment order under the TNVAT Act. Held that the amendment extending limitation was prospective, and the original five-year bar applied, quashing the order.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order is set aside. The connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 23.01.2018 Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Writ Petition No.32201 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.35384 of 2017
India Cycle Stores, rep. by its Proprietor S.H. Yaseen Hussian ...Petitioner
Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bazaar Assessment Circle, Salem. ...Respondent
Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the respondent in TIN No.33762780130/2008-09, dated 23.05.2017, and to quash the order passed therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.P. Srinivas For Respondent : Mr.M. Hari Haran Additional Government Pleader O R D E R
Heard Mr.A.P. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M. Hari Haran, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
assessment cannot be re-done, as it is beyond the time limit of five years. Considering the said submission, the Court on 12.12.2017, granted an order of interim stay, by passing the following order:-
" Heard Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
TNVAT Act, which was brought about by Act 23 of 2012, with effect from 19.06.2012, and therefore, such amendment can be only on prospective. Hence, the respondent cannot state that the period of limitation is six years. This very issue was decided by the Court, in the case of Universal Abrasives Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Manali Assessment Circle, Chennai, reported in [(2014) 68 VST 386 (Mad)], which decision has attained finality, and accepted by the Department. Thus, on facts, the revision of assessment order is without jurisdiction, as it is barred by limitation.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision of assessment order is barred by the five-year limitation period under Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act.
Whether the amendment to Section 27 of the TNVAT Act brought by Act 23 of 2012 is prospective or retrospective.
Whether the impugned re-assessment order is without jurisdiction as it is time-barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Universal Abrasives V. Commercial Tax Officer, Manali Assessment Circle, ChennaiReferred¶16
(2014) 68 VST 386 (Mad)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
India Cycle Stores, rep. by its Proprietor S.H. Yaseen Hussian
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Bazaar Assessment Circle, Salem
T.S. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
