CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Review Powers Under Repealed Act Invalid, Says Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nestle Tax Case

09 February 2025 10:52 AM

By: sayum


The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the retrospective tax review against Nestle India Ltd., setting aside the demands imposed by the State of Punjab. The court, in its judgment, emphasized that the assessment of Rs. 1.48 crore was impermissibly conducted under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, underscoring that the review powers exercised by the Assessing Authority were beyond its jurisdiction.

The case pertains to the assessment year 2002-03, where initially, on December 10, 2007, the Assessing Authority-cum-AETC Moga declared that Nestle India Ltd. was entitled to a tax refund of Rs. 4,18,358 under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (referred to as “the Act of 1948”). However, this decision was later reviewed by the same authority, resulting in a revised tax liability of Rs. 1,48,03,499. Nestle appealed this decision, leading to a series of legal proceedings that culminated in the current judgment.

The High Court critically examined whether the review jurisdiction was validly exercised by the Assessing Authority under the repealed Act of 1948. The court noted, “The review of Annexure A-1, as made by the Assessing Authority-cum-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Moga, whereby the earlier made exculpation towards tax liability (Annexure A-1) became quashed and set aside, thus was an impermissibly exercised review jurisdiction”​​.

The court highlighted that the Act of 2005, which repealed the Act of 1948, contained specific provisions protecting ongoing assessments and proceedings initiated under the old law. However, the court pointed out, “since in the repealed Act of 1948 there is no explicitly conferred review jurisdiction upon the authorities constituted thereunders, thereby the review of Annexure A-1 but naturally was impermissible and was also without any jurisdiction”​​.

Addressing the issue of timeliness, the court noted that the assessment was framed beyond the prescribed period. According to Section 11(3) of the Act of 1948, assessments must be completed within three years from the last date prescribed for filing the return. The court observed, “the prescribed date for filing of the return for the said year expired on 30.04.2006. However, the assessment... became much belatedly therefrom, framed on 10.12.2007”​​.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court's dismissal of the tax review against Nestle India Ltd. underscores the critical importance of jurisdictional boundaries and statutory limitations. By invalidating the retrospective assessment, the judgment reaffirms the principle that authorities must operate within the legal frameworks established by the applicable laws. This decision is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, providing clarity on the limits of review powers under repealed legislation.

Date of Decision: 11 July 2024

 

Latest Legal News