Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, SANJEEV NARULA
K.R. Anand – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on previous judgments and appeals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. grounds for impugning the order are discussed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. limitation period for tax assessment. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's decision to quash the impugned order. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral) :
CM APPL. 6001/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2047/2021 & CM APPL. 6002/2021 (for ex-parte ad-interim stay)
3. Before we deal with the challenge made in the present petition, it would be apposite to note the brief factual background. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of a W.P.(C.) 4904/2015 under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of Section 9 (2)(g) of the DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX ACT , 2004 (hereinafter referred to as `DVAT Act'), the notice of default assessment of tax and interest dated 28th March, 2015 as well as notice of assessment of penalty dated 28th March, 2015 for the year 2010-11.
4. The said petition was allowed in favour of the Petitioner vide judgment dated 26th October 2017 along with other batch o
The court established that tax assessment orders must adhere to statutory limitation periods, emphasizing that extensions to limitation cannot be granted post-expiration of the statutory timeline.
The impugned order was barred by limitation in terms of Section 34 of the DVAT Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period prescribed in the tax laws applies to assessment proceedings, and assessment orders issued beyond the prescribed period ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of a writ petition challenging Assessment Orders under the CST Act, considering grounds of limitation, lack of opportunity for he....
Limitation would arise under Section 29(6) of the Act, only in the event and at the stage of the application filed under Section 32 being allowed.
Assessment orders cannot be reopened after the limitation period as stipulated in the KVAT Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
