2022 (12) TMI 714 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of concessional rate of tax - Form 'C' filed - original order of assessment had come to be revised under impugned notice dated 04.12.2020 without notice or a pre-assessment proposal having been issued to the petitioner - recomputation of turnover - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Mr.Kumaran, (respondent-Revenue) would also confirm that there is no challenge to order dated 12.09.2022 as on date. This is recorded. In light of the admitted position, the observations and conclusions in order dated 12.09.2022 would apply on all force to the present case as well. Hence, the impugned orders are quashed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging a notice under Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for periods 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2008-2009.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision of Assessment Order (2003-2004):
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 04.12.2020 related to the period 2003-2004 under the Puducherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967. The notice revised the original assessment order dated 10.08.2007, questioning the validity of 'C' forms submitted by the petitioner. The notice sought to recompute the turnover and deny the exemption claimed, imposing a significant tax liability along with interest. However, the notice was issued long after the period of limitation set under Section 18 of the Act, rendering it impermissible.

2. Legal Irregularities in the Notice:
The High Court found several irregularities and illegalities in the impugned notice. The officer's actions were deemed misconceived as he revised the assessment order impermissibly, made an assessment in the notice itself, and recomputed the turnover eleven years after the period in question, exceeding the limitation period under Section 18 of the Act. Consequently, the re-computation of turnover and denial of exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act were set aside.

3. Criminal Liability and Limitation Period:
The respondent emphasized the intention to proceed against the petitioner under Section 49 of the Act for offences and penalties. However, the Court highlighted the importance of the period of limitation under Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on the category of punishment. The notice's attempt to impose criminal liability for an offence that was incapable of determination within the limitation period was deemed mis-conceived and barred by law, leading to the quashing of the notice.

4. Application of Previous Order (12.09.2022):
The Court noted that there was no challenge to the previous order dated 12.09.2022, which covered similar issues. Therefore, the observations and conclusions from the previous order were applied to the present case, resulting in the quashing of the impugned orders. The writ petition was allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in challenging a tax notice under the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory limitations and procedural requirements in such matters.