TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adducing the evidence, according to learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth, such a request was made to the authority concerned and it would take a while for the petitioner to produce an old record of the tax paid at Rajasthan, which was at the rate of 12.5% and, therefore also, there is no substantive reason to pay the tax so far as the petitioner is concerned. Without entering into the merits and without quashing the notice on the ground of limitation in wake of the decision of MH KHANUSIYA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 1 [ 2018 (8) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , the matter is being remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Learned AGP has no input from the department on the factum of payment of tax at the rate of 12.5% at the relevant point of time in the State of Rajasthan. However, the tax liability under the VAT Act is at par with Gujarat, as non-filing of the return would permit the respondent authority to initiate proceedings of issuance of notice, payment of tax at Rajasthan shall need consideration at the end of respondent. Petition disposed off by way of remand. - Honourable Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani And Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak Uchit N Sheth (7336) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, an inquiry started in July, 2021 regarding this issue. The petitioner informed the authority that the records were very old and they required time to gather the details and then to produce the same. 2.5. On 18.08.2021 Notice under the Entry Tax Act for the Assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 was issued. The petitioner responded to the said notice by reply dated 03.09.2021 urging that the notice had been issued after more than 13 years of entry of the vehicle and such unreasonable period, according to the settled law, would bar the period of limitation. Respondent No. 2, despite objection, passed the order impugned under section 8(5) of the Entry Tax Act. 2.6. According to the petitioner, its contention has been rejected relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.H. Khansuiya vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 (57) GSTR 395(Guj). It is worth noting that the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Apex Court. According to the petitioner, it was shocking that the authority imposed the tax with penalty under the Entry Tax Act without taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle had been purchased in the State of Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statue. Action has been taken within the reasonable time. 4. We have heard Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, who has urged that despite the decision of M.H. Khansuiya(supra), the action of the authority deserves interference. He has urged that after 13 years when the time was sought for collecting and then adducing the evidence, the same had not been availed of and this had led to an outright violation of principles of natural justice. He insisted on the very order of the assessment to be quashed. 5. At the outset, the Court needs to refer to the decision of M.H. Khansuiya(supra). In the writ petition against the notice, the contention was raised that the notice had been issued in the year 2016 in respect of the purchase of hydraulic excavator in the year 2006 and, hence, it was barred by law of limitation as provided under section 8(A) of the Entry Tax Act and against notice of demand directing the assessee to pay entry tax on the ground that it was impermissible in absence of any assessment order and because the entry tax was not liable, as they were not specified goods. The Court referring to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A. Kun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e done within a period of one year. 17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo moto power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 20. In The State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi Ors. reported in [AIR 1964 SC 1413], on interpretati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y came to know about the entry of these trucks within the Gujarat jurisdiction in the year 2017. The notice has been issued on 18.08.2021, since the petitioner had not filed the return, admittedly at any point of time, and therefore, the authority would have no other way of knowing the entry of the vehicles. The notice states that the entry of specified goods into the local area had been effected during the period from 01.04.20008 to 31.03.2009, in respect of which the petitioner is liable to pay tax under the Entry Tax Act and, as the petitioner did not furnish the prescribed date of return/challan in respect of the said period, he was directed to attend the office of the respondent on 03.09.2021 and produce the evidence in support of such return/challan. The petitioner was given the time of two weeks to pay the tax under the Entry Tax Act. The reply to this was given on 03.09.2021, where all through out the contention raised is of the law of limitation. It had also raised the issue of having purchased the trailers in the State of Rajasthan and also with regard to the tax having been paid at Rajasthan. 11. Although no time has been sought for adducing the evidence, according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
