2016 (1) TMI 422 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revisional proceedings - Bar of limitation - Quashing of SCN - Held that - we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the notices 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 from the date of receipt of the objection/reply in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner(s) and by passing a speaking order before proceeding further in the matter. - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging notices issued under Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as being beyond limitation.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Limitation of Notices
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash notices dated 3.3.2014, 19.5.2015, and 14.8.2015 issued under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner argued that these notices were beyond the limitation period. The petitioner, a real estate developer, had filed its income return for the assessment year 2008-09, which was assessed on 4.10.2010. The revisional order was to be passed by 3.10.2013, within three years from the supply of the order copy. Circulars were issued regarding VAT on developers entering agreements for property sale and including land value for VAT. The notices for revision of the assessment order were issued beyond the limitation period, as per the petitioner's contention.

Issue 2: Court's Decision
The High Court considered the challenge to the notices and found that the petitioner had filed the writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the notices. The petitioner had also submitted written responses to the notices before the competent authority. The Court did not find a justifiable reason to interfere with the notices at that stage. However, the Court clarified the proper course of action for the petitioner, emphasizing the filing of detailed objections and raising all relevant pleas. The revisional authority was directed to decide on the objections within six weeks of receiving them, after providing an opportunity for a hearing and passing a speaking order. The Court disposed of the writ petitions accordingly, allowing the petitioner to seek further remedies if aggrieved by the revisional authority's decision.

This judgment addresses the crucial issues of jurisdiction and limitation concerning notices issued under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court's decision provides guidance on the proper course of action for petitioners challenging such notices and emphasizes the importance of filing comprehensive objections and raising all relevant points in response.