http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: EMPIRE STORES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ITO

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/04/1993

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 635

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER 1.   The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that  the  change  made  in the  law  has  no  retrospective application in order to permit the authority to rely on  the larger  period of limitation prescribed under the  new  law. On this basis he submits that in the present case the notice of  reassessment given to the petitioner is invalid  because it  is  based  on the application of the  larger  period  of limitation prescribed under the new law.  The High Court has dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition on the ground  that the points raised by the petitioner are available to him for being   raised  by  the  petitioner  before  the   assessing authority. 2.   The  above  submission  of  learned  counsel  for   the petitioner  is  based  on  certain facts  which  are  to  be determined in the first instance by the assessing authority. The  petitioner  can  place his case  before  the  assessing authority in response to the notice issued to the petitioner and  await the decision of the assessing authority  on  that point.  It appears that even under the old law, in a certain situation  the objection of limitation may not arise if  the facts  necessary to attract that provision providing  for  a larger  limitation are found in the present case.   In  case the  assessing authority has already completed the  exercise it  would be open to the petitioner to raise that  point  in appeal  on  the basis of facts on which he claims  that  the benefit of the larger period of limitation under the old law is  not  available  in  the  present  case  to  reopen   the assessment   for  the  assessment  years  1981-82   in   the petitioner’s  case and that the larger period under the  new law is not available because the same applies prospectively. This  point  remains  open  to  the  petitioner  for   being canvassed  in  the  appropriate  proceedings.   With   these observations, the special leave petition is dismissed. Court Master 637

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2