The main legal point established in the judgment is that the assessing authority's power to revise the assessment is subject to a limitation period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, as specified in Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act.

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Challenging the revised assessment order issued by the respondent in CST.No.50386/98-99 dated 23.8.2004 as barred by limitation, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a dealer in Abrasives in Grindling Wheels and declared their turnover for the year 1998-1999. For the year 1998-1999, the assessment order was passed on 11.12.2000. A pre-revision notice dated 5.4.2004 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that a sum of Rs.10,12,510/- being sales made to 100% export oriented units located in other states has escaped assessment turnover. By the impugned revised proceedings dated 23.8.2004, the respondent determined a sum of Rs.1,11,336/- as tax due from the petitioner by making the assessment under Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act.

3. Challenging the revised assessment order dated 23.8.2004, petitioner filed writ petition contending that the revision of assessment under Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act was clearly barred by limitation since the pre-revision notice was issued on 5.4.2004 and the revised assessment order was made on 23.8.2004, which is after the expiry of five years.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revised assessment proceedings dated 23.8.2004 issued by the respondent for the assessment year 1998-1999 is statutorily barred by limitation and the respondent has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment beyond the period of five years from the expiry of the year of which the tax relates, the impugned revised assessment proceedings is not sustainable. Further it was contended that when the respondent has no jurisdiction to revise the assessment, the existence of alternative remedy of filing appeal is not a bar in invoking the writ jurisdiction.

5. Learned Government Pleader Mr.A.R.Jayaprathap appearing for the respondent submitted that as against the impugned revised assessment proceedings the writ petitioner ought to have approached the authorities by filing objection and since there is efficacious alternative remedy available under the statute, the writ petition is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the respondent has rightly issued the revised assessment proceedings under Section 16 of the TNGST Act and the same is well within the time.

6. The point falling for consideration is, whether the impugned revised assessment proceedings is within the prescribed time or not?

7. Section 16(1)(a) of the TNGST Act, 1959, which is the relevant provision, reads as under:

“Section 16. Assessment of escaped turnover.- (1) (a) Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, the assessing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after making such inquiry as it may consider necessary and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such assessment.”

Section 16(1) deals with the revised assessment of escaped turnover. By a reading of the above provision it is clear that where whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment of tax, the assessing officer has power to revise the assessment at any time within a period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. In the present case, the assessment year is 1998-1999 and the period of five years expires on 31.03.2004. The respondent has issued the impugned revised assessment proceedings on 23.8.2004 and the revised assessment proceedings is well beyond the period of five years and hence the revised assessment proceedings is clearly barred by limitation.

8. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that