01Facts
The petitioner, a registered works contractor under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), filed returns for assessment years 2011–12 to 2014–15. The Court recorded that the returns were accompanied by the prescribed documents and proof of tax payment and that the assessments were therefore deemed completed under Section 22(2).
pp. 4, 10–11In March 2022, after the petitioner sought copies of the assessment orders, the respondent examined the records, alleged discrepancies, and issued notices. The respondent then passed reassessment orders dated 23 June 2022, 24 June 2022 and 20 July 2022 under Section 27. The petitioner challenged those orders as time-barred.
pp. 5–802Issues
i.Whether the respondent’s proceedings under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, relating to assessment years 2011–12 to 2014–15, were barred by the statutory six-year limitation period.
pp. 10–1103Law Applied
Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act provides for deemed completion of an assessment where the dealer files returns in the prescribed manner with the required documents and proof of tax payment.
pp. 9–10Section 27 authorises reassessment for escaped turnover or wrong availment of input tax credit, subject to the limitation period prescribed by that section; the Court applied a six-year period. The Court also relied on R. Vijayalakshmi v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), W.P.Nos. 17289, 17291, 17295 and 17297 of 2021 (19 February 2024), for the proposition that Section 27 limitation applies to assessments deemed completed under Section 22(2).
pp. 5, 8–11Provisions in the judgment · 6
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 Section 5Section 13Section 21Section 22Section 25Section 27
04Reasoning
The Court treated it as undisputed that the petitioner’s returns met the requirements for deemed assessment under Section 22(2). Accordingly, any reassessment under Section 27 had to be initiated within the statutory six-year period. The challenged proceedings and orders in 2022 were beyond that period for the assessment years in question.
pp. 10–11The petitioner’s letter of 1 March 2022, which sought copies of assessment orders, could not extend, enlarge or revive the statutory limitation period, nor could the respondent’s jurisdiction be enlarged by the dealer’s correspondence or conduct.
p. 1105Holding
The Court held that the Section 27 proceedings were time-barred and that the respondent consequently lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.
p. 12It set aside the assessment orders dated 23 June 2022, 24 June 2022 and 20 July 2022, allowed the writ petitions, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
p. 12Original Court PDF
M/s SSPDL Interserve (P) Ltd.,vsThe State Tax Officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
