IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No.10 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2011 State of Punjab and another. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Nakodar 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 6.9.2010, 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.10 of 2011 2. Assessment in the case of the assessee was framed on 30.5.2005 and additional demand of tax was created. The assessee carried the matter to the High Court 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:- “Assessment for the year 2001-02 should have been framed on or before 30.04.2005. State counsel was asked to check up and inform whether commissioner had ever exercised powers u/s 11(10) of the PGST Act and extended the period of limitation. No such order has been produced in spite of opportunity given. Under these circumstances, assessment framed on 30.05.2005 for the assessment year 2001-02 being beyond the prescribed period of limitation, was void ab initio 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 30.4.2005 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 07, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) 2 VATAP No.10 of 2011 ashwani JUDGE 3