Allowed

Precisision Techserve Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Madras HC8 Nov 2023WP/12687/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that a notice issued under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act was barred by limitation as it was issued after the six-year period from the deemed date of assessment. Consequently, the impugned order was declared a nullity, and the writ petition was allowed. The court relied on CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. to support the view that a time-barred order lacks jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 13.12.2019 under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act set aside; writ petition allowed.

Precisision Techserve Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer — Income Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. No.12687 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶6

W.P. No.12687 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.13477 of 2021

¶7

Precisision Techserve Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director, T.G. Ramesh, No.22, 1^st Floor, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Tax Officer, T.Nagar Assessment Circle, No.46, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶10

. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order of the respondent passed in TIN/33941562002/2007-08 I.A.No.2/2015-16 dated 20.04.2021 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali For Respondent : Ms.Amrita Dinakaran, Government Advocate

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P. No.12687 of 2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned notice dated 13.12.2019 issued for the assessment year 2007-2008 under the TNVAT Act is barred by limitation.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the deeming contained in Section 22(2) of the Act, the assessment for the year 20072008 is deemed to have been made on 30.06.2012, therefore, six years from thereon which is the period fixed for invoking Section 27 of the Act would expire on 30.06.2018. However, there is no dispute that first of the notices under the TNVAT Act was issued only on 30.12.2018 which is well beyond the period prescribed under Section 27 of the Act and thus barred by limitation. It is submitted that any order or proceeding which is barred by limitation is a nullity inasmuch as limitation relates to jurisdiction.

¶19

To the contrary it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent

¶20

that one cannot isolate TNVAT Act but must also take into account the assessment under Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) while reckoning the limitation for making 2/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P. No.12687 of 2021 reassessment under TNVAT Act inasmuch as the input tax credit entitlement will

¶23

have to be made on the basis of declaration form filed under the CST Act. It was submitted that the assessment order under the CST Act was originally passed on 23.12.2015 against which an appeal was preferred in A.P.C.No.28/2016 dated 15.03.2018 and consequential order giving effect to the Appellate Authority's order was also made on 24.12.2018. It was thus submitted that assessment under the CST Act having been made on 23.12.2015, the limitation of 6 years must be reckoned from 23.12.2015 for the purpose of assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act.

¶24

Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶25

Although a faint attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the assessments are related to Section 22(4) of the Act. On a reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Assessing Authority has himself understood that the impugned order as having been made in exercise of the power under Section 27 of the Act, in which case the limitation of six years from the date of assessment provided under Section 27 of the Act must be reckoned from the date of deemed assessment i.e., 30.06.2012 and thus any 3/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P. No.12687 of 2021 proceeding under Section 27 of the Act must be initiated within six years thereof i.e.,30.06.2018.

¶28

The impugned proceedings under Section 27 is initiated only on 30.12.2018 thus barred by limitation. An order barred by limitation is a nullity and lacking jurisdiction. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 215, wherein it was held as under:

¶29

“The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the

¶30

Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly

¶31

without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceeding a nullity.”

¶32

(emphasis supplied)

¶33

7. In view of the same the impugned notice dated 13.12.2019 is set aside.

¶34

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶35

08.11.2023

¶36

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No spp/shk

¶37

4/5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P. No.12687 of 2021

¶40

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

¶41

spp/shk

¶42

To State Tax Officer, T.Nagar Assessment Circle, No.46, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028.

¶43

W.P. No.12687 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.13477 of 2021

¶44

08.11.2023

¶45

5/5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Precisision Techserve Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Precisision Techserve Pvt. Ltd. v. State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.PharmaZell Vizag Private Limited Vs Additional / Joint Deputy / Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Tvl.Alliance Projects Vs The State Tax officer

M/s.Kwangjin INdia Autosystems Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Tvl.Tamil Nadu Vanigar Sangankalin Vs The Commissioner of Commercial TAxes

Ase Structure Design Private Limited Vs The Deputy commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Pride Enterprises Vs Income Tax Department