2016 (1) TMI 45 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of assessment orders - Bar of limitation - revision of the assessment year 2007-08 was issued after the expiry of more than seven years - Held that - Petitioner(s) on receipt of the notice had filed the writ petitions in this Court challenging the same to be without jurisdiction. In some of the cases, the petitioner(s) had neither filed any objection/reply to the said notice nor raised the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petitions before the competent authority. - there is no 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 petitions. In case any objection/reply is filed by the petitioner(s) 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 - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notice for revisional proceedings under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as beyond limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dealt with a group of 23 petitions challenging a notice for revisional proceedings under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as being beyond the limitation period. The petitions sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and a writ of prohibition to prevent the revisional proceedings. The petitioners contended that the notice for revision was issued after the expiry of seven years, which they argued was beyond the revisional authority's power as per the relevant notification. The court noted that the assessment order was deemed to have been passed on the date of filing the return, and since the revisional order was required to be passed within a specified time frame, the notice for revision was challenged on grounds of being beyond limitation.

The court examined the arguments presented by the parties and observed that the petitioners had challenged the notice on the basis of jurisdictional limitations. It was noted that some petitioners had not filed objections or replies to the notice before the competent authority. The court, after considering the contentions, found no justifiable reason to interfere with the notice at that stage. However, the court directed the petitioners to file detailed objections or replies within two weeks and instructed the revisional authority to decide on these submissions within six weeks after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The court emphasized the importance of raising all relevant pleas and submitting comprehensive objections before the revisional authority for a proper adjudication of the matter.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions accordingly, clarifying that the petitioners could seek further remedies available under the law if they were aggrieved by the revisional authority's decision. The judgment highlighted the significance of following due process and raising all relevant issues before the competent authority to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the matter in question.