M.Palanikumar vs. The Deputy Commissioner(St) (Fac)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 29.05.2024 on the premise that it has been barred by limitation in terms of Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The impugned order finds that the petitioner was originally assessed in terms of Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act for the assessment year 2011-2012 i.e., on 30.10.2012. 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that verification of the monthly returns, allegedly revealed certain discrepancies in the value of Input Tax Credit between Form-I and Annexure-I of the monthly return. A notice was issued on 02.05.2024, proposing to reverse the excess ITC and impose penalty under Section 27(4)(ii) of the TNVAT Act. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the limitation for the assessment year 2011-2012 under Section 27 of the Act was 6 years from the date of assessment. Assessment under Section 22(2) of the Act having been made on 31.10.2012, the limitation under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act (i.e.,) 6 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis years from the date of assessment under Section 22(2) of the Act would expire on 31.10.2018. The impugned orders of assessment made on the basis of a notice, dated 02.05.2024 is thus barred by limitation.
To the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that the impugned order, is an appealable order.
This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is barred by limitation. It is trite law that limitation goes to the root of juri iction and an order which is barred by limitation is a nullity. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1) CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Limited reported in (2007) 7 SCC 215, wherein it was held as under: “The revisional juri iction having, thus, been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without juri iction rendering the entire proceeding a nullity.” (emphasis supplied)” 2) ITW Signode India Ltd v. CCE reported in (2004) 3 SCC 48, wherein it was held as under: 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “69. The question of limitation involves a question of juri iction.”
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order being barred by limitation is a nullity and without juri iction, thus the same is set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 05.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Commercial Tax Building Complex, Law College Road, Madurai-20. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai-20. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
, J.
BTR
2024
5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.