2017 (6) TMI 1256 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Real estate developer must challenge tax notices promptly to address jurisdictional issues effectively

M/s Suman Villas Pvt. Ltd., Jhajjar Versus State of Haryana and another

The High Court found that the petitioner, a real estate developer, did not challenge the notices for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 under the ... Validity of assessment notice - time limitation - Jurisdiction - It was urged that the notices having been issued without jurisdiction being beyond limitation, the proceedings pursuant thereto could not continue - Held that:- The petitioner on receipt of the notices (Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively) had filed the writ petition in this Court challenging the same to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner had neither filed any objection/reply to the said notices nor raised the pleas as have been raised in the instant writ petition before the competent authority. There are no justifiable reason to interfere with the notices under challenge - the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a detailed and comprehensive objection/reply and to raise all the pleas as have been raised in the writ petition - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to notices for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 under Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for being beyond limitation.Analysis:The petitioner, a real estate developer, received notices for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 as an unregistered dealer under Section 16 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The notices were issued beyond the three-year limitation period for assessment. An amendment to the Act extended the limitation period to six years, but it was prospective from 3.8.2015. The petitioner challenged the notices as being beyond limitation, arguing that the proceedings could not continue due to lack of jurisdiction.The High Court noted that the petitioner did not file any objection or reply to the notices challenging jurisdiction before the competent authority. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the notices at that stage. However, the Court directed the petitioner to file a detailed objection/reply within two weeks and raised all relevant pleas. Respondent No.2 was instructed to decide on the objection/reply within six weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order before proceeding further.The writ petition was disposed of with the clarification that if the petitioner had any grievances after the authority's decision, it could seek further remedies available in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of raising objections and presenting detailed replies before the authority to address jurisdictional issues effectively.