2023 (9) TMI 2 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - inspection was contrary to authorization under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT - The petitioner having failed to respond to the notice cannot challenge the impugned order either before the Appellate Commissioner after limitation or before this Court long after the limitation. Before the Appellate Authority the appeal would be time barred and before this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of latches. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has held that High Courts cannot entertain writ petition against assessment orders beyond the period of statutory period - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited case 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT , a writ petition beyond the statutory period of limitation is liable to be dismissed. There are no hesitation in taking the view that what this Court cannot do in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it is unfathomable as to how the High Court can take a different approach - The principle underlying the rejection of such argument by this Court would apply on all fours to the exercise of power by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no case made out for interfering with the Impugned Assessment Order - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018 under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

Impugned Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018, referencing VAT No. 34730012817/2017-18 for the period April 2017 to June 2017, under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The challenge stemmed from a Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2018, following an inspection on 10.02.2018, which the petitioner's counsel argued was contrary to the authorization under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, was unable to respond to the notice due to the deponent being hospitalized at the time.

Contentions:
The petitioner's counsel relied on specific cases to support the writ petition, while the Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) defended the Impugned Assessment Order. The respondents argued that there was proper authorization for the inspection conducted on 10.02.2018, authorized by the Commissioner of State Tax on 09.02.2018. They further contended that the writ petition was filed long after the limitation period for appeal had expired and that no reply was given to the notice dated 28.08.2018, leading to the passing of the Impugned Order.

Judgment:
The Court noted that the petitioner had authorized their accountant to provide the necessary documents during inspection, which was conducted with proper authorization. Emphasizing the delay in filing the writ petition beyond the limitation period, the Court cited a recent Supreme Court decision stating that High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions against assessment orders beyond the statutory period. Referring to the principles outlined in various cases, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of merit and the petitioner's failure to respond in a timely manner. The dismissal was based on the grounds of the petition being time-barred for appeal and the availability of alternative remedies as prescribed by law.