O R D E R

The petitioner is a company and an assessee for the purposes of sales tax on the files of the respondent/assessing officer. The petitioner challenges order of assessment dated 30.11.2019 for the period 2011-12 passed in terms of Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') invoking the provisions for revision under Section 27 of the Act. 2. The sequence of dates and events that have transpired in the matter are as follows:

(i) Initially, monthly returns filed by the petitioner were not taken up for scrutiny and hence no order under Section 22(4) had been passed. An order of assessment is hence deemed to have been passed on 30.06.2012.

(ii) While this is so, there was an inspection in the premises of the peitioner on 27.05.2016, pursuant to which the Assessing Authority took the matter up for revision of assessment.

(iii) The first notice issued in this case is dated 16.02.2018 and calls upon the petitioner to show cause why reversal of input tax credit (ITC) not be effected in terms of Section 19(5)(c) of the Act as well as 19(5)(a) in respect of the exempted sales.

(iv) Objections were called for and the petitioner on 22.02.2018 contested both the proposals.

(v) This was followed by a notice dated 29.08.2019 wherein the Assessing Authority reiterates the proposal for reversal of ITC as contained in notice dated 16.02.2018 and adds yet another proposal based on the finding of the audit inspection conducted by the Enforcement and VAT Audit Wings of the Department.

3. Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner would contest the impugned assessment order on the bar of limitaiton premised on the facts that the second notice dated 29.08.2019 has been issued beyond the period of six years from the date of deemed assessment. The expiry of limitation, in this case as noticed earlier, is 30.06.2018 and thus, according to him, notice dated 29.08.2019 is beyond the period of limitation.

4. To be noted that a learned Single Judge of this Court has in the case of Orient Fans Vs. State Tax Officer, WP.Nos.10118 of 2019 by order dated 08.04.2022 taken a view that initiation of proceedings for revision prior to expiry of six years would save the period of computation of limitation under Section 27 and it is necessary for the proceedings to have been finalized and an order of revision of assessment passed prior to expiry of six years.

5. Though assessees are stated to have carried the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA. No.1488 to 1491 of 2022 and WP.No.59691 of 2022, the same is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Division Bench. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would concur that there is no stay of the order of the learned Single Judge in Orient Fans (supra).

6. The prevailing position as on date is that initiation of proceedings within the six years period of limitation as prescribed under Section 27 would suffice to save limitaiton in passing of re-assessment orders.

7. The specific argument advancd by the petitioner is that notice dated

29.08.2019 brings to tax a component of turnover that did not figure in notice dated 16.02.2018 that was issued in time. This according to him, would vitiate the proceedings for the reason that an entirely new component of turnover, based on the enforcement proposal, has found place only in the notice that was issued post expiry of limitation.

8. For this purpose, he would rely on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Petron Engineering Construction Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), [(2013) 62 VST 330]. I am unable to accede to this submission for the reason that an asessment is a continuing process and there is no bar on the number of show casue notices that may be issued.

9. What is necessary is to ensure that sufficient opportunity is granted to the assessee at every stage of issue of show cause notice to rebut the pro