The Assessing Officer, however, sent numberices to the respondent assessee in Form ST XIV for the aforesaid Assessment Years, i.e., after the expiry of three years.
This order of extension was challenged by the respondent along with the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer.
When the objection was taken by the assessee that the numberices were time barred, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala passed orders dated August 17, 2007 granting extension of time.
The assessee had filed quarterly returns in respect of the aforesaid Assessment Years.
Reason given for extension of time was that the case of the assessee for the year 1999 2000 was pending with the Tribunal.
This plea of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal.
The assessee took an objection that these numberices were sent beyond the period of assessment and, therefore, it was number permissible for the Assessing Officer to issue numberice after the expiry of three years and carry on with the assessment proceedings.
Accordingly, assessments were to be made by 30th April, 2004 for the Assessment Year 2000 01, 30th April, 2005 for the Assessment Year 2001 02, 30th April, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2002 03 and 30th April, 2007 for the Assessment Year 2003 04.
It is an admitted case that numberassessment was made in respect of any of these Assessment Years by the aforesaid stipulated dates.
The assessee took up the matter further by filing appeals before the High Court.
Obviously, assessment in respect of these Assessment Years was to be made under the said Act.
In these appeals, we are companycerned with Assessment Years 2000 01, 2001 02, 2002 03 and 2003 04.
In terms of Section 11 3 of the Act, time limit for companypleting the assessment provided therein is three years from the end of the year.
21712 21717 of 2009 was taken as the lead case, for understanding the nature of lis that is involved, the factual narration can be addressed from the said appeal.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
It is for this reason that all these appeals were heard together and can companyveniently be disposed of by one companymon judgment.
Since SLP C Nos.
