The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revised assessment under Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act was statutorily barred by limitation, leading to the allowance of the writ appeal.

P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.

The above appeal is filed against the order dated 30.07.2004 made in W.P.No.32 of 2004.

2. The appellant herein had filed the writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Pro.TNGST NO.913553/95-96 dated 01.06.2004 relating to the assessment year 1995-96.

3. The facts of the case proceed as follows:

The appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of cotton fabrics at Chatrapatti. The assessment year is 1995-96. The appellant is an assessee on the file of the respondent registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. During the assessment proceedings, the respondent verified the books of accounts on 07.02.1997 and fixed the total and taxable turnover as Rs.19,86,04,287/- and Rs Nil respectively. Since the taxable turnover was nil, no intimation was sent as regards the completion of the original assessment proceedings. Later a pre-revision notice dated 14.04.2004 had been issued on the basis of the information received from the Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour-II, Assessment Circle, Chennai, that the appellant had effected sales of REP licence for Rs.10,46,359/-from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1996 and directed the appellant to send objection, if any, to the proposal. The appellant immediately sent an objection dated 27.04.2004 to the respondents submitting that the revision of assessment under Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST ACT was clearly barred by limitation on the ground that pre-revision notice was issued on 14.0.2004, which is after the expiry of five years. After considering the objection, the respondent has completed the revised assessment year 1995-96, which is as follows:

Total turnover for the year 1995-96 -Rs. 10,46,359.00 Taxable turnover determined for the year 1995-96 -Rs. 10,46,350 x 8/100 Tax due -Rs 83,709/- Tax paid - Nil Balance - Rs. 83,709.00 Surcharge: Surcharge @ 15% is also levied for the year 1995-96. Surcharge due - Rs 12.556.00 Surcharge paid - Rs. Nil Balance - Rs. 12,556.00 Aggrieved by the revised assessment order, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.32 of 2004 challenging the revised order made by the respondent on the ground that it is ex facie, illegal, barred by limitation and without any basis and justification. After hearing, the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition on 30.07.2004 by holding as follows:

" In result,

(i) The above Writ Petition does not merit admission for the foregoing reasons assigned, but becomes only liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is dismissed accordingly.

(ii) However, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has a request to be made with the Court that since he has made an attempt before this court under the constitutional provisions in filing the above writ petition, much time is lost and would crave permission to elongate the time for preferring the regular appeal before the appellate authority. Since it is a reasonable request made on the part of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the lower appellate authority is hereby directed to entertain the appeal, provided the same is preferred within thirty days from the day that this order copy is made ready.

(iii) The appellate authority is further directed to consider and pass such interim orders which are necessary in the circumstances of the case even during the pendency of the appeal, if sought for, in strict observance of the law, rules and procedures.

However in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the revision of assessment passed by the Respondent for the assessment year 1995-96 is statutorily barred by limitation. Further it was contended that when the Respondent has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment, the existence of alternate remedy of filing appeal is not a bar in ap