The Delhi High Court ruled that the assessment has to be Completed within a period of four years.
The Petitioner, K.R.Anand had earlier approached the Court challenging the vires of Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 the notice of default assessment of tax and interest as well as notice of assessment of penalty for the year 2010-11.
The respondent passed the order which is titled as “Notice of default assessment of tax and interest under Section 32”, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
The primary ground for impugning the said order is that the same is barred by limitation.
Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD appearing on advance notice, defends the impugned order and submits that it is within limitation in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the DVAT Act. He submits that in terms of the said provision, the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in order dated 17th January, 2020.
Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid order was passed by ignoring the mandate of Section 34 of the DVAT Act which prescribes limitation for completion of assessment and provides a period of four years.
“We are not impressed with the submission advanced by Mr. Satyakam that the impugned order is within limitation in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 34. The said provision is entirely inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances. The impugned order has not been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any decision of this court which requires the re-assessment of the Assessee/Petitioner. Further, it may be noted that this Court, while disposing of the miscellaneous application vide order dated 17th January, 2020, could not have extended the period of limitation contrary to the statute,” the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw noted.
Therefore the court held that in the present case, the notice is clearly barred by limitation in terms of Section 34 of the DVAT Act and accordingly, the court had no hesitancy in setting aside the same on the ground of limitation.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment