O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the respondent's proceedings in TIN:33083362019/2011-12 dated 07.03.2019 and quash the same.

2. A short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the impugned order passed by the respondent on 07.03.2019 can be said to have been passed within the limitation prescribed under Sections 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “TNVAT Act, 2006”).

3. The facts of the case are that there was a deemed assessment in terms of proviso to Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 on 31.10.2012.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 27(1)

was amended in the year 2012 with effect from 19.06.2012. It is therefore submitted that the limitation as it stood prior to the aforesaid amendment would apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, notice issued on 10.10.2018 for revising the assessment was beyond the period of limitation and thus without jurisdiction.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent issued the said notice after the expiry of the limitation on 10.10.2018. It is submitted that the limitation expired on 30.10.2017. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the limitation had not expired on the date of issue of notice, the impugned order dated 07.03.2019 was passed after the expiry of limitation and was therefore time barred in view of the specific language in Section 27(1) of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

6. He further submits that re-assessment has to be completed within a period of six years from the relevant assessment even if Section 27(1) as amended with effect from 19.06.2012 was applicable and therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Tvl.Victus Dyeings Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rural Assessment Circle, Tirupur, in W.P.No.20925 of 2019 and etc batch, dated 29.07.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following cases:-

i. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut Vs. Lakshmi Chand and others, 1963 Supp (1) 242 : AIR

1963 SC 677.

ii. The Sales Tax Officer and another Vs. Messrs Sudarsanam Iyengar and Sons, 1969 (2) SCC

396.

iii. Brij Gopal and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 1977 SCC OnLine MP 37 : AIR 1978 MP 122 (FB).

iv. Radha Kishan Vs, Dy. Director of Consolidation and others, 1985 SCC OnLine All

163 : 1985 AWC 357 All.

v. Mohit Shantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 405 : (2000)

241 ITR 28 (Guj).

vi. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (204) 3 SCC 1 : AIR 2004 SC 2836.

vii.M.V.S.Kadirvel Nadar Vs. State of Madras represented by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, Madras, 1961 SCC OnLine Mad 130 : (1961) 74 LW 812.

viii.K.Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1970 SCC OnLine AP 217 : (1971) 27 STC 303.

ix. The State of Gujarat Vs. Jamnagar Motor Stores, 1973 SCC OnLine Guj 102 : (1974) 33 STC 353.

x. Rajmal Multanmal and Company and another Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddapah and others, 1974 SCC OnLine AP 215 : (1976) 37 STC 252.

xi. Khetmal Parekh and Company Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1976 SCC OnLine AP 260 :

(1976) 38 STC 531.

xii.M.Ramakrishnaiah and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1976 SCC OnLine AP 261 :

(1976) 38 STC 537.

xiii.M.Gulam Mohideen Vs. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Board of Revenue, Madras and another, 1978 SCC OnLine Mad 3 :

AIR 1978 Mad 327.

xiv.The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.O.Mohamed Sulaiman and Co., 1979 SCC OnLine Mad 367 :

(1980) 46 STC 151.

xv.K.Lakshmanaswami Chettiar and Sons Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu, 1979 SCC OnLine Mad

376 : (1980) 46 STC 327.

xvi.Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 SCC OnLine Mad 451 : (1982) 49 STC 58 (Mad).

xvii.State of A.P. Vs. M.Ramaishtaiah and Co., (1994) 93 STC