M/S.P.K. Mookanambalam & Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the amendment to Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which extended the limitation period to six years, was prospective and not retrospective. The original assessment order was passed in October 2008. Under the pre-amendment provision, the limitation period was five years. Therefore, the limitation period expired in October 2013. The revision notice, issued on 05.09.2014, was consequently barred by limitation. The Court relied on a previous decision of the same High Court in W.P.(MD)No.32201 of 2017, which followed the ruling in Universal Abrasives Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Manali Assessment Circle, Chennai [(2014) 68 VST 386 (Mad)]. The Court found that the respondent lacked the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice after the expiry of the limitation period. The impugned notice was quashed. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.P.K.Mookanambalam & Co., challenged a revision notice dated 05.09.2014 issued by the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (CT). The notice was issued to revise an order passed under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, on 10.10.2008, pertaining to the assessment period January 2007 to March 2007. The petitioner contended that the revision notice was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and barred by limitation. The respondent argued that they could revise the assessment within six years. The court noted that the original assessment was made before an amendment to Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which increased the limitation period from five to six years, effective from 19.06.2012.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Section 27(1)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, increasing the limitation period for assessment of escaped turnover and wrong availment of input tax credit from five years to six years, effective from 19.06.2012, is retrospective or prospective in application to the present case? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the amendment, having come into force after the original assessment order was passed, should be applied prospectively. Therefore, the original five-year limitation period should apply, making the revision notice issued on 05.09.2014 barred by limitation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that it was open to them to revise the assessment within a period of six years, implying they were relying on the amended provision.