Assessment under tax laws must adhere to prescribed limits and requirements; jurisdictional lapses invalidate reassessment. A notice lacking 'reason to believe' is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. P. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. The challenge made in the present writ petition, is to the assessment orders dated 12.05.2023, passed under Section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the consequential notices of demand dated 20.05.2023, issued in pursuance thereof, by the respondent no. 3 for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue, arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under: -

The petitioner had submitted its return of turnover under the provisions of CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956, for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and paid the tax as per the return.

After submission of the said returns, the respondent authorities herein vide a notice bearing No. 95, issued invoking the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (herein after the Act of 1956) read with Section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (herein after referred as the Act of 2003), informed the petitioner that the returns filed by it for the period 2016- 17 and 2017-18, under the Act of 1956, were selected for audit assessment under Section 9(2) of the Act of 1956 read with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act of 2003 and accordingly, required it to appear in-person or through an authorized agent and produce evidence or have it produced in support of the returns. Further, the petitioner was required to produce or caused to be produced, accounts, registers, invoices and other documents which it is required to maintain and furnish the required declaration and certificates in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1956.

The petitioner, on receipt of the said notice from the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-D, Guwahati, i.e., the respondent no. 3 herein, submitted a representation dated 19.04.2023 to the said authority and therein, contended that under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 2003, no assessment is permissible after expiry of 5 years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates. It was contended that the 5 year period of limitation for the assessment made for the years 2016-2017 and 2017-18 had already expired on 31.03.2022 and 31.03.2023 respectively, and accordingly, no assessment for the said years was permissible to be so initiated against the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 2003. It was further highlighted in the said representation that the Department had erred in quoting Section 40 of the Act of 2003 for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, inasmuch as, vide the notice in question, a assessment under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act of 1956 read with Section 36 of the Act of 2003 was proposed to be so done.

The respondent authorities, in pursuance to issuance of the notice dated 11.04.2023 and on completion of the assessment, proceeded to issue orders dated 12.05.2023, assessing the returns of the petitioner for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Basing on the assessment made, demand notices all dated 20.05.2023 came to be issued to the petitioner for the years for which the assessment was so carr