2023 (9) TMI 637 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reopening of assessment - limitation under Section 30 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 - HELD THAT - The date of the notice dated 09.08.2018 which was subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.No.10998 of 2019 stood decided by an order dated 25.11.2021. The petitioner has not challenged the same in the manner known to law - Assessing Officer was thereafter merely required to pass assessment order based on the notice issued on 09.08.2018. The petitioner was to meet out the allegations in the notice on merits. There was no scope for entertaining any question of limitation merely because notice dated 19.04.2022 was issued. The first respondent has merely issued a notice on 19.04.2022 which has now given a reason to the writ petitioner to state that the proceedings are time barred. This stand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to Impugned Assessment Orders dated 10.05.2022 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 on the ground of limitation under Section 30 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

Details of the judgment:
In the writ petitions, the petitioner contested the assessment orders issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The petitioner argued that the notice dated 19.04.2022 was outside the limitation period and lacked specific details justifying the invocation of Section 30 of the Act. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision to support the claim that the Impugned Orders were without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that the assessment process commenced with the issuance of summons and contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 47 of the Act. They referred to a court decision where it was held that the assessment proceedings started with the summons, and subsequent notices were not barred by limitation.

The court considered both parties' arguments and noted that the petitioner did not challenge the earlier notice dated 09.08.2018 in the appropriate legal manner. The court emphasized that the petitioner was required to address the allegations in the notice on merits, and the subsequent notice dated 19.04.2022 was a continuation of the earlier proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to file statutory appeals before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days from the date of the order.

Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed with the liberty to file statutory appeals before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 47 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. If such appeals are filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, the Appellate Commissioner shall dispose of them on merits.