TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition challenging tax assessment dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Officer's designation valid post-repeal.</h1> <h3>Idasa India Ltd. Versus State of Punjab and Others</h3> The court dismissed the petition challenging the tax assessment order under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, due to lack of jurisdiction of the ... - Issues:Quashing of tax assessment order under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 due to lack of jurisdiction of the designated officer.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash an assessment order dated August 25, 2009, for the assessment year 2005-06 under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, alleging non-compliance with natural justice principles and tampering with records by the Excise and Taxation Officer acting as a designated officer. A previous writ petition highlighted violations of natural justice, leading to a change in the assessing officer. The current challenge was solely based on the jurisdictional issue of the officer's designation under the Act.The petitioner argued that the officer who assessed the tax was not a designated officer as per the Act, despite being appointed as such under a notification issued under the Punjab Value Added Tax Ordinance, 2005, which was later repealed. The State contended that the notification survived the repeal under the State General Clauses Act, maintaining the officer's designation status. The court examined the relevant legal provisions and precedents to address this issue.Referring to Section 22 of the State General Clauses Act, akin to Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the court emphasized that notifications issued under a repealed Act continue under the re-enacted provisions unless inconsistent. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court clarified that the notification appointing designated officers should be considered valid under the re-enacted Act, despite the repeal of the Ordinance. Consequently, the contention that the officer's designation lapsed after the enactment of the Act was dismissed.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition challenging the assessment order, affirming the validity of the officer's designation under the Act. The judgment clarified that the dismissal would not impact the pending appeal's merits before the appellate authority, ensuring the petitioner's right to pursue further legal recourse.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
