9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 823 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxService of Notice Notice published on website Notice on Cases were selected for re-assessment, but as period of three years, provided for re-assessment, had expired, extended period was invoked as per Section 29(4) of Punjab value Added tax act, 2005 Assessments were finalised by raising further demand However in appeal, Tribunal allowed appeals holding that service of notice on website of department, was not valid service and personal notices were not issued or served Held that - Section 29(4) provides that assessment under sub-section (3) may be made within three years after date when annual statement was filed It was held in A.B. Sugars Limited versus State of Punjab and others, 2009 (9) TMI 895 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , that power under Section 29(4) cannot be invoked without affording opportunity of hearing to dealer Admittedly no individual notice was ever served upon assessees, before order extending period of limitation was passed After referring to Rule 86 of Rules, it was held that failure of department to serve individual notices was incurable defect, that renders assessment orders null and void Therefore no error of jurisdiction or of law in impugned order found Service of individual notice was sine qua non for invoking power and admitted absence of any such individual notice, renders assessment orders, illegal and void Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to correctness of order by State of Punjab regarding assessment under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 based on service of notice through website without individual notices to assessees. Analysis: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed the challenge brought by the State of Punjab against the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal. The issue revolved around the validity of assessment orders passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer without serving individual notices to the assessees. The State contended that uploading a notice on the department's website was sufficient to inform the assessees about the intention to invoke an extended period of three years for reassessment. However, the Tribunal held that service of notice on the website was not valid, and as personal notices were not issued, the assessment orders were deemed null and void. The Court examined Section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which allows for assessment within three years after the annual statement is filed. The Court referred to a previous case, A.B. Sugars Limited vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that the power to extend the assessment period requires affording an opportunity of hearing to the dealer. The State of Punjab sought to extend the assessment period beyond three years by uploading a notice on the website without serving individual notices, contrary to Rule 86 of the 2005 Rules which specifies modes of serving notices. The Court analyzed the Tribunal's decision, which highlighted the absence of individual notices as a fatal flaw rendering the assessment orders invalid. The State relied on a judgment regarding a Municipal Corporation case, but the Court distinguished it, stating that the situation in the present case did not permit publication of a notice on the website as per the rules. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the service of individual notices is essential for invoking power, and the lack of such notices rendered the assessment orders illegal and void. Consequently, the appeal by the State of Punjab was dismissed.
|
