2016 (5) TMI 773 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Period of limitation - Seeking quash of notices for initiating assessment proceedings - years 2009-10 to 2015-16 and years 2009-10 to 2011-12 - Assessment proceedings are time barred - Petitioner contended that even if the amendment dated 21.9.2015 was considered, whereby the limitation period had been increased from 3 years to 6 years, then also the assessment proceedings were time barred as the said amendment was prospective in nature. Held that - on perusal, it is found that petitioner on receipt of the notices, filed replies dated 3.5.2016 to the said notices. So at this stage, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the notices under challenge. Respondent shall decide the replies dated 3.5.2016 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, 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:
Challenge to notices for initiating assessment proceedings for multiple years under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 based on limitation grounds.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash notices dated 30.3.2016 for commencing assessment proceedings for the years 2009-10 to 2015-16 and 2009-10 to 2011-12. The petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings were time-barred as they were initiated in the name of a different entity and not in the petitioner's name. The petitioner raised objections regarding the limitation period and the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The petitioner had applied for registration under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act in 2014, and subsequently, notices were issued for assessment. The petitioner argued that even if the limitation period was extended from 3 years to 6 years, the proceedings were still time-barred. The Assessing Authority directed the petitioner to appear failing which the assessment would proceed ex parte, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, the court noted that the petitioner had responded to the notices by filing detailed replies on 3.5.2016. The court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the notices at that stage. It directed Respondent No.2 to decide on the replies within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, following the principles of natural justice and issuing a speaking order before further proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, allowing the petitioner to avail of further legal remedies if aggrieved by the authority's decision post the court's order.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the notices for initiating assessment proceedings, emphasizing the importance of considering the petitioner's responses and providing a fair opportunity for a hearing before proceeding with the assessment. The court's decision focused on ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in the assessment process under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.