2016 (1) TMI 282 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Works contractor service - Benefit of composition scheme - Validity of SCN - Issued beyond jurisdiction - Held that - Petitioner(s) had neither filed any objection/reply to the said notice nor raised the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petitions before the competent authority. - 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 notice issued under Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for being beyond limitation.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a bunch of petitions challenging a notice issued under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from acting on it. The petitioners, engaged in real estate development, were issued a notice for the tax period 2010-11. The assessment order was passed in 2014. The petitioners contended that the notice was illegal and baseless. The High Court observed that the petitioners had not filed any objection or reply to the notice before challenging it in court. The court emphasized the importance of filing a detailed objection/reply and raising all relevant pleas before the competent authority. The court directed the petitioners to file objections within two weeks and the revisional authority to decide on them within six weeks after affording a hearing to the petitioners.

The court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the notice at that stage. However, it clarified the course of action for the petitioners, emphasizing the need to file comprehensive objections and replies before the revisional authority. The court directed the revisional authority to pass a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the petitioners. The court disposed of the writ petitions accordingly, allowing the petitioners to avail further legal remedies if unsatisfied with the revisional authority's decision. The judgment highlights the procedural aspect of challenging tax notices, emphasizing the importance of filing objections and raising all relevant pleas before the appropriate authority before seeking judicial intervention.