M/S SHIV STEELSversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

         [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1069 : 2025 INSC 1126

                      M/s Shiv Steels
                              v.
                 The State of Assam & Ors.
                (Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2014)
                       11 September 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was right in holding that
although the earlier assessments for the three years were held
to be time-barred, yet, the revenue having obtained appropriate
sanction from the Commissioner, the limitation thereafter would
be governed by s.21 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

                            Headnotes†
Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 – ss.19, 21 – Time limit for
completion of assessment and re-assessments – Assessment
in certain cases – Earlier assessments for the three years
held to be time-barred, yet, the revenue having obtained
appropriate sanction from the Commissioner, the limitation
thereafter would be governed by s.21, upheld by the High
Court – Correctness:
Held: In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of
a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law – If,
the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions
of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by
analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature
and by considering what was the substance of the matter – On
facts, assessments undertaken for the three years were already
held to be invalid because of being time barred, in view of s.19 –
Later, by virtue of obtaining sanction from the Commissioner, the
revenue could not have taken recourse to s.21 to say that the
reassessment within four years is permissible with prior sanction
from the Commissioner – s.21 would apply only in cases where no
assessment has been made under any of the provisions of the Act
within the time limits specified in s.19 – Interpretation of the two
provisions by the High Court completely incorrect, and the order
passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 12-14]
1070                                                     [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                              List of Acts
     Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993.

                           List of Keywords
     Time limit for completion of assessment and re-assessments;
     Assessment in certain cases; Assessment time-barred; Sanction
     from the Commissioner; Limitation; Construing fiscal statutes;
     Taxing statute; Imposition of tax by inference or by analogy.

                          Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2014
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2012 of the Gauhati
     High Court in WP No. 3178 of 2011
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 4441 and 4442 of 2014

                       Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv., Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gaurav
     Shukla.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, Sr. A.A.G., Shuvodeep Roy, Irfan Hasieb,
     Vijay Deora, Aditya Agarwal.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

1.   Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are same, the
     parties are also the same and the challenge is also to the self same
     judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up
     for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common
     order.
2.   For the sake of convenience, we take up the Civil Appeal No. 4440
     of 2014 as the lead matter.
3.   This appeal arises from the common judgment and order passed
     by the Gauhati High Court dated 21.09.2012 in WP(C) No. 3178 of
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        1071

              M/s Shiv Steels v. The State of Assam & Ors.


     2011 by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein came to
     be dismissed by which the Order of reassessment dated 31.3.2011
     passed under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act,
     1993 (for short, “the Act, 1993”) was set aside and the matter was
     remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
     In the present case, we are concerned with the assessment years
     2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 respectively.
4.   It is the case of the appellant that the assessments undertaken for
     all these years were time barred. The learned counsel appearing
     for the appellant would argue that the authority concerned having
     regard to the time limit prescribed under Section 19 of the Act, 1993
     declared the assessments for all the assessment years to be time
     barred. However, later the department obtained the sanction of the
     Commissioner and invoked Section 21 of the Act, 1993 to bring the
     fresh assessment within the period of limitation.
5.   The petitioner being dissatisfied by the fresh assessment challenged
     the same before the High Court.
6.   The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding as under:-
           “6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the
           reassessment was within limitation under Section 21
           of the Act which provides for outer limit of seven years
           if reassessment was made with the sanction of the
           Commissioner. In the present case, sanction was duly
           granted by the Commissioner on 21.03.2011 and therefore,
           reassessment was within time. It was also submitted that
           quashing of earlier assessment as barred by limitation in
           absence of grant of sanction by the Commissioner did not
           debar the assessment being made after the sanction was
           granted. It was further submitted that as far as ex-parte
           assessment is concerned, grievance of the Petitioner could
           be considered by the assessing authority.
           7. On due consideration, we are unable to find any merit
           in the first two submissions in view of sanction having
           been duly granted on 21.03.2011 under Section 21 of the
           Act. Thus, the assessment cannot be held to be barred
           by limitation nor quashing of earlier order debar fresh
           assessment being made in accordance with law after the
1072                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          sanction was granted. As regards giving of proper hearing
          to the Petitioner, in view of stand of learned counsel for
          the revenue the assessing authority can consider the view
          point of the Petitioner and then finalize the assessment
          and may not give effect to the ex parte assessment.
          8. Accordingly, we dispose of these petitions with a direction
          that earlier ex parte assessment may not be acted upon
          and fresh assessment be made after giving hearing to the
          Petitioner. The Petitioner may appear before the Assessing
          Authority for the purpose on December 17, 2012.”
7.   In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before
     this Court with the present appeal.
8.   We heard Mr. Manish Goswami, the learned senior counsel appearing
     for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma, the learned senior
     counsel appearing for the State of Assam.
9.   The short point that falls for our consideration is whether the
     High Court was right in taking the view that although the earlier
     assessments for the three years referred to above were held to be
     time-barred, yet, the revenue having obtained appropriate sanction
     from the Commissioner, the limitation thereafter would be governed
     by Section 21 of the Act, 1993.
10. Section 19 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
          “19. Time limit for completion of assessment and re-
          assessments.
          (1) No assessment shall be made under section 17 after
          the expiry of three years from the end of the year in
          respect of which of part of which the assessment is made
          or, in a case where the dealer has furnished a return or a
          revised return under sub-section (4) of section 16 after the
          expiry of two years in which such, return or revised return
          is received by the Assessing Officer, whichever is later:
          Provided that in a case falling under sub-section (6) of
          section 17, the assessment may be made at any time
          before the expiry of eight years from the end of the year
          in respect of which or part of which the assessment is
          made under that sub-section.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           1073

              M/s Shiv Steels v. The State of Assam & Ors.


           2) No re-assessment under section 18 shall be made -
           (a)In a case falling under clause (1) of that section, after
           the expiry of three years; and
           (b)In a case falling under clause (b) of that section after
           the expiry of one year from the end of the year in which
           the notice under that section is served on the dealer.
           (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
           (1) or sub-section (2) an assessment, re-assessment or
           re-computation to give effect to any order or direction
           in appeal, revision or references, may be made at any
           time before the expiry of two years from the end of the
           year in which the order in appeal, revision or reference is
           communicated to the Assessing Officer.
           Explanation. - In computing the period of limitation for the
           purposes of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the period
           during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an
           order or injunction of any court or other authority, shall be
           excluded and such proceeding may be completed within
           one year from the end of the year in which the stay was
           vacated as if the limitation period had not expired.”
11. Section 21 of the Act, 1993 reads thus:-
           “21. Assessment in certain cases.
           Where [***] no assessment has been made under any of
           the foregoing provisions within the time limits specified in
           section 19 then, notwithstanding anything contained in that
           section the assessment shall be made within four years
           from the date of expiry of the limitation period with prior
           sanction from the Commissioner:
           Provided that the powers of the Commissioner to accord
           sanction for assessment as aforesaid shall not be delegated
           by him to any person appointed to assist him under sub-
           section (1) of section 3.”
12. The plain reading of Section 21 of the Act, 1993, referred to above,
    would indicate that in cases where no assessment has been
    made under any of the provisions within the time limits specified in
    Section 19, then, notwithstanding anything contained in that Section
1074                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     the assessment would be permissible within four years from the
     date of expiry of the limitation period with prior sanction from the
     Commissioner.
13. Here is a case wherein the assessments undertaken for the three
    years were already held to be invalid because of being time barred,
    in view of Section 19 of the Act, referred to above. Later, by virtue
    of obtaining sanction from the Commissioner, the revenue could
    not have taken recourse to Section 21 of the Act to say that the
    reassessment within four years is permissible with prior sanction
    from the Commissioner. Section 21 would apply only in cases where
    no assessment has been made under any of the provisions of the
    Act within the time limits specified in Section 19. The interpretation
    of the two provisions of the Act at the end of the High Court is
    completely incorrect.
14. In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject
    to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue
    satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of
    the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is
    not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing
    statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by
    trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering
    what was the substance of the matter.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal, along with the two
    connected appeals stands allowed and the common judgment and
    order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain