Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1126
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 OF 2014
M/S. SHIV STEELS APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4441 OF 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2014
O R D E R
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned
appeals are same, the parties are also the same and the
challenge is also to the self same judgment and order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.17
18:30:44 IST
Reason:
passed by the High Court, those were taken up for
1
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, we take up the Civil
Appeal No. 4440 of 2014 as the lead matter.
3. This appeal arises from the common judgment and
order passed by the Gauhati High Court dated 21.09.2012
in WP(C) No. 3178 of 2011 by which the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by
which the Order of reassessment dated 31.3.2011 passed
under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act,
1993 (for short, “the Act, 1993”) was set aside and the
matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh
consideration.
3. In the present case, we are concerned with the
assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006
respectively.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the assessments
undertaken for all these years were time barred. The
2
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue
that the authority concerned having regard to the time
limit prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, 1993
declared the assessments for all the assessment years to
be time barred. However, later the department obtained
the sanction of the Commissioner and invoked Section 21
of the Act, 1993 to bring the fresh assessment within
the period of limitation.
5. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the fresh
assessment challenged the same before the High Court.
6. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
as under:-
“6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits
that the reassessment was within limitation
under Section 21 of the Act which provides for
outer limit of seven years if reassessment was
made with the sanction of the Commissioner. In
the present case, sanction was duly granted by
the Commissioner on 21.03.2011 and therefore,
reassessment was within time. It was also
submitted that quashing of earlier assessment
as barred by limitation in absence of grant of
sanction by the Commissioner did not debar the
assessment being made after the sanction was
granted. It was further submitted that as far
as ex-parte assessment is concerned, grievance
of the Petitioner could be considered by the
assessing authority.
3
7. On due consideration, we are unable to find
any merit in the first two submissions in view
of sanction having been duly granted on
21.03.2011 under Section 21 of the Act. Thus,
the assessment cannot be held to be barred by
limitation nor quashing of earlier order debar
fresh assessment being made in accordance with
law after the sanction was granted. As regards
giving of proper hearing to the Petitioner, in
view of stand of learned counsel for the
revenue the assessing authority can consider
the view point of the Petitioner and then
finalize the assessment and may not give
effect to the ex parte assessment.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of these petitions
with a direction that earlier ex parte
assessment may not be acted upon and fresh
assessment be made after giving hearing to the
Petitioner. The Petitioner may appear before
the Assessing Authority for the purpose on
December 17, 2012.”
7. In such circumstances, referred to above, the
appellant is here before this Court with the present
appeal.
8. We heard Mr. Manish Goswami, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy
Pradip Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Assam.
9. The short point that falls for our consideration is
whether the High Court was right in taking the view that
4
although the earlier assessments for the three years
referred to above were held to be time-barred, yet, the
revenue having obtained appropriate sanction from the
Commissioner, the limitation thereafter would be
governed by Section 21 of the Act, 1993.
10. Section 19 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
“19. Time limit for completion of assessment
and re-assessments.
(1) No assessment shall be made under section 17
after the expiry of three years from the end of the
year in respect of which of part of which the
assessment is made or, in a case where the dealer
has furnished a return or a revised return under
sub-section (4) of section 16 after the expiry of
two years in which such, return or revised return
is received by the Assessing Officer, whichever is
later:
Provided that in a case falling under sub-section
(6) of section 17, the assessment may be made at
any time before the expiry of eight years from the
end of the year in respect of which or part of
which the assessment is made under that sub-
section.
2) No re-assessment under section 18 shall be made
-
(a)In a case falling under clause (1) of that
section, after the expiry of three years; and
(b)In a case falling under clause (b) of that
section after the expiry of one year from the end
of the year in which the notice under that section
is served on the dealer.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) an assessment, re-
assessment or re-computation to give effect to any
order or direction in appeal, revision or
5
references, may be made at any time before the
expiry of two years from the end of the year in
which the order in appeal, revision or reference is
communicated to the Assessing Officer.
Explanation. - In computing the period of
limitation for the purposes of sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), the period during which the
assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or
injunction of any court or other authority, shall
be excluded and such proceeding may be completed
within one year from the end of the year in which
the stay was vacated as if the limitation period
had not expired.”
11. Section 21 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
“21. Assessment in certain cases.
Where [] no assessment has been made under*
any of the foregoing provisions within the time
limits specified in section 19 then,
notwithstanding anything contained in that
section the assessment shall be made within four
years from the date of expiry of the limitation
period with prior sanction from the
Commissioner:
Provided that the powers of the Commissioner to
accord sanction for assessment as aforesaid
shall not be delegated by him to any person
appointed to assist him under sub-section (1)
of section 3.”
12. The plain reading of Section 21 of the Act, 1993,
referred to above, would indicate that in cases where no
assessment has been made under any of the provisions within
the time limits specified in Section 19, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in that Section the
assessment would be permissible within four years from the
6
date of expiry of the limitation period with prior sanction
from the Commissioner.
13. Here is a case wherein the assessments undertaken for
the three years were already held to be invalid because of
being time barred, in view of Section 19 of the Act, referred
to above. Later, by virtue of obtaining sanction from the
Commissioner, the revenue could not have taken recourse to
Section 21 of the Act to say that the reassessment within
four years is permissible with prior sanction from the
Commissioner. Section 21 would apply only in cases where no
assessment has been made under any of the provisions of the
Act within the time limits specified in Section 19. The
interpretation of the two provisions of the Act at the end of
the High Court is completely incorrect.
14. In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the
liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the
strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that
the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the
subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not
covered within the four corners of the provisions of the
taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by
analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the
7
legislature and by considering what was the substance of the
matter.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal, along with
the two connected appeals stands allowed and the common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set
aside.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………………………………………J.
[J.B. PARDIWALA]
……………………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
New Delhi
11th September, 2025
cd
8
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 OF 2014
M/S. SHIV STEELS APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4441 OF 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2014
O R D E R
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned
appeals are same, the parties are also the same and the
challenge is also to the self same judgment and order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.09.17
18:30:44 IST
Reason:
passed by the High Court, those were taken up for
1
hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, we take up the Civil
Appeal No. 4440 of 2014 as the lead matter.
3. This appeal arises from the common judgment and
order passed by the Gauhati High Court dated 21.09.2012
in WP(C) No. 3178 of 2011 by which the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by
which the Order of reassessment dated 31.3.2011 passed
under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act,
1993 (for short, “the Act, 1993”) was set aside and the
matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh
consideration.
3. In the present case, we are concerned with the
assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006
respectively.
4. It is the case of the appellant that the assessments
undertaken for all these years were time barred. The
2
learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue
that the authority concerned having regard to the time
limit prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, 1993
declared the assessments for all the assessment years to
be time barred. However, later the department obtained
the sanction of the Commissioner and invoked Section 21
of the Act, 1993 to bring the fresh assessment within
the period of limitation.
5. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the fresh
assessment challenged the same before the High Court.
6. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
as under:-
“6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits
that the reassessment was within limitation
under Section 21 of the Act which provides for
outer limit of seven years if reassessment was
made with the sanction of the Commissioner. In
the present case, sanction was duly granted by
the Commissioner on 21.03.2011 and therefore,
reassessment was within time. It was also
submitted that quashing of earlier assessment
as barred by limitation in absence of grant of
sanction by the Commissioner did not debar the
assessment being made after the sanction was
granted. It was further submitted that as far
as ex-parte assessment is concerned, grievance
of the Petitioner could be considered by the
assessing authority.
3
7. On due consideration, we are unable to find
any merit in the first two submissions in view
of sanction having been duly granted on
21.03.2011 under Section 21 of the Act. Thus,
the assessment cannot be held to be barred by
limitation nor quashing of earlier order debar
fresh assessment being made in accordance with
law after the sanction was granted. As regards
giving of proper hearing to the Petitioner, in
view of stand of learned counsel for the
revenue the assessing authority can consider
the view point of the Petitioner and then
finalize the assessment and may not give
effect to the ex parte assessment.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of these petitions
with a direction that earlier ex parte
assessment may not be acted upon and fresh
assessment be made after giving hearing to the
Petitioner. The Petitioner may appear before
the Assessing Authority for the purpose on
December 17, 2012.”
7. In such circumstances, referred to above, the
appellant is here before this Court with the present
appeal.
8. We heard Mr. Manish Goswami, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy
Pradip Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the State of Assam.
9. The short point that falls for our consideration is
whether the High Court was right in taking the view that
4
although the earlier assessments for the three years
referred to above were held to be time-barred, yet, the
revenue having obtained appropriate sanction from the
Commissioner, the limitation thereafter would be
governed by Section 21 of the Act, 1993.
10. Section 19 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
“19. Time limit for completion of assessment
and re-assessments.
(1) No assessment shall be made under section 17
after the expiry of three years from the end of the
year in respect of which of part of which the
assessment is made or, in a case where the dealer
has furnished a return or a revised return under
sub-section (4) of section 16 after the expiry of
two years in which such, return or revised return
is received by the Assessing Officer, whichever is
later:
Provided that in a case falling under sub-section
(6) of section 17, the assessment may be made at
any time before the expiry of eight years from the
end of the year in respect of which or part of
which the assessment is made under that sub-
section.
2) No re-assessment under section 18 shall be made
-
(a)In a case falling under clause (1) of that
section, after the expiry of three years; and
(b)In a case falling under clause (b) of that
section after the expiry of one year from the end
of the year in which the notice under that section
is served on the dealer.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) an assessment, re-
assessment or re-computation to give effect to any
order or direction in appeal, revision or
5
references, may be made at any time before the
expiry of two years from the end of the year in
which the order in appeal, revision or reference is
communicated to the Assessing Officer.
Explanation. - In computing the period of
limitation for the purposes of sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2), the period during which the
assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or
injunction of any court or other authority, shall
be excluded and such proceeding may be completed
within one year from the end of the year in which
the stay was vacated as if the limitation period
had not expired.”
11. Section 21 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
“21. Assessment in certain cases.
Where [] no assessment has been made under*
any of the foregoing provisions within the time
limits specified in section 19 then,
notwithstanding anything contained in that
section the assessment shall be made within four
years from the date of expiry of the limitation
period with prior sanction from the
Commissioner:
Provided that the powers of the Commissioner to
accord sanction for assessment as aforesaid
shall not be delegated by him to any person
appointed to assist him under sub-section (1)
of section 3.”
12. The plain reading of Section 21 of the Act, 1993,
referred to above, would indicate that in cases where no
assessment has been made under any of the provisions within
the time limits specified in Section 19, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in that Section the
assessment would be permissible within four years from the
6
date of expiry of the limitation period with prior sanction
from the Commissioner.
13. Here is a case wherein the assessments undertaken for
the three years were already held to be invalid because of
being time barred, in view of Section 19 of the Act, referred
to above. Later, by virtue of obtaining sanction from the
Commissioner, the revenue could not have taken recourse to
Section 21 of the Act to say that the reassessment within
four years is permissible with prior sanction from the
Commissioner. Section 21 would apply only in cases where no
assessment has been made under any of the provisions of the
Act within the time limits specified in Section 19. The
interpretation of the two provisions of the Act at the end of
the High Court is completely incorrect.
14. In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the
liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the
strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that
the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the
subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not
covered within the four corners of the provisions of the
taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by
analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the
7
legislature and by considering what was the substance of the
matter.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal, along with
the two connected appeals stands allowed and the common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set
aside.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………………………………………J.
[J.B. PARDIWALA]
……………………………………………J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
New Delhi
11th September, 2025
cd
8