TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the return for the assessment year 2003-04. The same having been passed on June 13, 2008 was clearly beyond limitation. The Tribunal was thus in error in holding that the order passed on June 13, 2008 was within limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - V. A. T. Appeal Nos. 132, V. A. T. Appeal Nos. 162 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 19-8-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND FATEH DEEP SINGH JJ. Rajiv Agnihotri for the appellant. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, for the respondents. JUDGEMENT This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 132 and 162 of 2013, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and the issues involved are similar. However, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 132 of 2013. 2. VATAP No. 132 of 2013 has been preferred by the assessee under section 36 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, the HVAT Act ) against the orders dated June 13, 2008, March 5, 2009 and May 8, 2013, annexures A3, A5 and A7, respectively passed by the authorities below for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessees. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the revisional authority had initiated action under section 34 of the HVAT Act within the period of limitation of three years. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the annual return in the present case was filed on November 19, 2004 relating to the assessment year 2003-04. It was urged that the assessment order, annexure A1, passed on November 25, 2005 was non est as no notice under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the HVAT Act was issued and in such a situation, the filing of the return was the assessment order in terms of section 15(1) of the HVAT Act. The period of three years for invoking revisional jurisdiction reckoned from November 19, 2004, i.e., the date of filing of return and deemed assessment, would render the revisional proceedings barred by limitation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 8. It would be apt to refer to relevant statutory provisions, i.e., sections 15 and 34 of the HVAT Act and rule 27 of the HVAT Rules:- S. 15. Assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on an issue which on appeal or in any other proceeding from such order is pending before, or has been settled by, an appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be: Provided further that no order shall be revised after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the supply of the copy of such order to the assessee except where the order is revised as a result of retrospective change in law or on the basis of a decision of the Tribunal in a similar case or on the basis of law declared by the High Court or the Supreme Court. (2) . . . R. 27. Selection of cases for scrutiny and deemed assessment:- (1) The following categories of cases may be taken up for scrutiny:- (i) gross turnover exceeding five hundred lakh rupees in a year; (ii) claim of input tax exceeding ten lakh rupees in a year; (iii) claim of refund exceeding three lakh rupees in a year; (iv) claim of sales made in the course of inter-State trade and commerce or in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India or in the course of import of goods into the territory of India exceeding twenty five lakh rupees in a year; (v) cases of industrial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by such notice shall not exceed one year and shall be served on the dealer before the expiry of one year from the last date prescribed for riling the last return relating to the assessment period or the actual date of filing of the last return, whichever is later. 10. Section 34 of the HVAT Act empowers the Commissioner to suo motu exercise revisional jurisdiction. He can call for the record of any pending case or disposed of to satisfy himself about the legality or proprietary of any proceedings or of any order made which is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A reasonable opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the concerned person before passing the order. It has also been provided that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised within three years from the date of supply of the copy of the order to the assessee. The period of limitation of three years shall not be applicable where the jurisdiction is being invoked as a result of retrospective amendment in law or on the basis of decision of the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. However, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised on an issue where an appeal or any other proceedings are pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
