High Court Upholds Notice for Revisional Proceedings under VAT Act

The High Court upheld the notice for revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, but directed the petitioner to file a detailed objection or reply within two weeks. The revisional authority was instructed to decide on the objection within six weeks and pass a speaking order before proceeding further. The petitioner retained the right to pursue further remedies as per the law post the revisional authority's decision.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to notice dated 19.8.2015 for revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
- Jurisdiction of the revisional authority.
- Failure to file objection/reply to the notice.
- Proper course of action for the noticee.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the notice dated 19.8.2015 and to prohibit respondent No.3 from continuing with the revisional proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner's return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was assessed at nil turnover with a penalty imposed. The Department could initiate proceedings until 31st March 2013, but no action was taken during that period. Subsequent circulars were issued regarding VAT on developers. The notice for revision of the assessment order was issued on 19.8.2015, which the petitioner argued was beyond the seven-year limitation period. The petitioner challenged the notice on jurisdictional grounds, contending that it was time-barred.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had not filed any objection or reply to the notice, nor raised the arguments presented in the writ petition before the competent authority. Despite finding no justifiable reason to interfere with the notice at that stage, the Court clarified the proper course of action for the petitioner. The petitioner was instructed to file a detailed objection or reply within two weeks and raise all relevant pleas. The revisional authority was directed to decide on the objection within six weeks of receipt and pass a speaking order before proceeding further. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the petitioner retaining the right to pursue further remedies as per the law post the revisional authority's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the notice for revisional proceedings but emphasized the importance of the petitioner filing a comprehensive objection/reply and raising all relevant arguments before the revisional authority. The judgment highlighted the procedural requirements and the need for the revisional authority to provide a reasoned decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

---