9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following judgment of the Court was delivered by Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. These six writ appeals and three writ petitions have been preferred by the assessee challenging the revisional order passed under Section 49 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the VAT Act') imposing liability of payment of Value Added Tax & Entry Tax for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09. While the six writ appeals would arise from the orders passed in writ petitions wherein final orders were assailed, the three writ petitions were preferred earlier in the year 2016 challenging the issuance of show cause notice dated 14-7-2015 on the ground that the very initiation of suo motu revisional jurisdiction is bad in la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been passed on 28-11-2016, it is within time allowed for passing the order as contemplated under Section 49 (3) of the VAT Act. 4. Before proceeding further to consider the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions wherein the final order in suo motu revision has been assailed, we shall deal with the original writ petitions i.e. WPT Nos.42, 43 & 44 of 2016 for the reason that in these writ petitions the very initiation of the proceeding by issuance of show cause notice has been assailed on the ground that the show cause notice seeks to suo motu revise the original assessment orders in respect of Provincial Tax and Entry Tax passed on 1-5-2009, 1-5-2010 and 22-1-2008 by issuing show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment: Provided that- (a) no proceeding shall be initiated under this sub-section after the expiry of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to be revised; (b) no order shall be revised by the commissioner under this sub-section where a second appeal against such order is pending before the Tribunal or such appeal has been decided by the Tribunal on merits." 8. It is settled by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 592 at para 16 that the department/ Revenue cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. Thus, the argument advanced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, the year is different), refers to the original order of assessment. 12. On this count, we may profitably refer to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 215 wherein it is held thus at para 20 : 20. We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and, in particular, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising its revisional jurisdiction reopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund which being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Act would begin t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
