IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No.12 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.4.2011 State of Punjab and another. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Punjab VAT Tribunal dated 6.9.2012, Annexure A-4, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the period of limitation should have been calculated by the Tribunal up to the date on which judgment was reserved by the Assessing Authority or the date on which the judgment was released? ii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law? iii) Whether the provision of Section 11(3) is directory in nature especially when the legislature has empowered the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation by exercising power under Section 11(10) of the Act, 1948?” VATAP No.12 of 2011 2. Assessment in the case of the assessee was framed on 24.3.2005 and additional demand of tax was created. The assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal on the ground that the assessment was barred by limitation, being beyond three years from the last date of filing of the return. This plea was upheld by the Tribunal as follows:- “On the last date, State counsel had been asked to check up whether the commissioner had ever extended the period of limitation by exercising powers U/s 11(10) of the PGST Act. No order of the Commissioner had been produced inspite of opportunity given. Under these circumstances, assessment framed on 24.03.2005 for the assessment year 2000-01 being beyond the prescribed period of limitation, was void abinitio and is liable to be set aside.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The factual aspect has not been disputed that limitation for framing the assessment was upto 30.4.2004 under Section 11(3) of the Act and the assessment in the present case, was beyond the said period. 5. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 08, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) 2 VATAP No.12 of 2011 ashwani JUDGE 3