9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine qua non for invoking power and the absence of such individual notice renders the assessment orders illegal and void. The said judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh And Another [2015 (4) TMI 1097 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT]. No individual notices were issued to the petitioners whereas general notices were put up on the website which would not meet the legal requirement under proviso to Section 29(4) of the Act read with Rule 86 of the Rules. Therefore, Annexure P-2 is quashed in both the writ petitions. - Petition disposed of X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Territory of Chandigarh for levy and collection of VAT and turnover tax on the sales or purchases of goods and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and repealed the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as applicable to UT, Chandigarh. The petitioner had filed its return for the year 2007-08 on quarterly basis in Form VAT-15. On the basis thereof, statement showing a gross turnover of Rs. 13,13,83,980/- was also filed. As per Section 29(4) of the Act, the assessment of the dealer could have been framed only within a period of three years from the last date of filing of the annual statement. Since, in the present case, the annual statement in Form VAT-20 was filed on 20.11.2008 for the assessment year 2007- 08, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide order dated 27.4.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 15695 of 2014 (Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another) held that Rule 86 of the Rules does not envisage service of a general notice or by publication on the website of the department and that the absence of individual notices rendered the assessment order illegal and void. Hence, the present writ petitions for quashing the extension order as well as the assessment order passed by respondent No.2. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. A Division Bench of this Court on M/s Olam Agro India Ltd's case (supra) had held that Rule 86 of the Rules does not envisage service of a general notice or by publication on the website of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
