TAMIL NADU TRADERS ERODE Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER SMR OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the respondent in exercise of its suo motu power of revision, in respect of the business of the petitioner relating to circulation sales for the assessment year 1974-75 and 1975-76. Regarding the assessment year 1974-75, the Assessing Authority has passed orders on 24.06.1976, imposing tax on the turnover. On appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the same was allowed on 27.04.1977 in favour of the assess. Likewise, in respect of the assessment year 1975-1976, as against the levy of tax by the Assessing Officer on circulation sales, by order dated 15.02.1977, the appeal of the assessee filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was allowed on 27.4.1977.

(2.) Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, there was no further right of appeal available to the revenue against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In fact, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner while passing the orders in the appeal in favour of the assessee has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 03.03.1976 in Sri Srinivasa Sales Circulation VS State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 38 STC 359. As against the said judgment of the Madras High Court dated 03.03.1976, an appeal has been filed to the Supreme Court in the year 1977 and ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Government by judgment dated 04.10.1996 reported in (1996) 103 STC 485, holding against the assessee.

(3.) In the meantime, as per the original Section 34(2) of the TNGST Act, the period of limitation to pass orders expired on 27.04.1982, in respect of both the assessment years. In the meanwhile, an amendment Act 22 of 1982 was brought in, by which, an amendment was effected to Section 34 of the TNGST Act with effect from 01.11.1982. Under the amended provision to Section 34, instead of the period of limitation of five years being given for the purpose of passing orders, the term 'initiation' has been used. In addition to it, a proviso has been incorporated under the amended Act to the effect that the period from the date of judgment of the High Court till the date of judgment by the Supreme Court should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation, while passing orders.