2015 (12) TMI 918 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of SCN - Bar of limitation - Held that - Petitioner on receipt of the notice, had filed the writ petition in this Court challenging the same to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner had neither filed any objection/reply to the said notice nor raised the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petition before the competent authority. - we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the notice under challenge. However, we clarify that the proper course of action for the noticee is to file detailed and comprehensive objection/reply and to raise all the pleas as have been raised in the writ petition. In case any objection/reply is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the revisional authority shall decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the objection/reply in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge to notice dated 1.10.2015 for revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Timeliness of the notice in relation to the limitation period for revisional proceedings.
3. Failure of the petitioner to file objections or replies to the notice before seeking judicial intervention.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated 1.10.2015, seeking a writ of certiorari and prohibition against the revisional proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the limitation period for revision. The Department had the authority to initiate revisional proceedings until 26.10.2011, but no action was taken during that period. The petitioner raised objections based on the notification issued under Section 34(2) of the Act, arguing that the revisional authority lacked the power to revise the assessment order dated 27.10.2008. The court noted the timeline of circulars issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, highlighting the evolution of VAT assessments on builders and developers.

2. The High Court examined the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-revisional authority in issuing the notice beyond the limitation period. The court observed that the petitioner had not filed any objections or replies to the notice before approaching the court. While finding no immediate reason to interfere with the notice, the court emphasized the importance of the petitioner filing a detailed objection/reply within two weeks and the revisional authority deciding on it within six weeks. The court directed the revisional authority to pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. The court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the petitioner to follow the proper course of action by submitting comprehensive objections or replies to the notice and raising all relevant pleas before the revisional authority. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to seek remedies available under the law if dissatisfied with the revisional authority's decision. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in challenging administrative actions related to tax assessments under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.