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>Court validates penalty notice under Chhattisgarh VAT Act, 2005 within time limit</h1> <h3>M/s. Ganpati Motors Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Deputy Commissioner (Appellate), Commercial Tax, Raipur.</h3> M/s. Ganpati Motors Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Deputy Commissioner (Appellate), Commercial Tax, Raipur. - TMI Issues:Validity of notice issued by Commissioner under Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the legality of a notice issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, under Section 49(3) of the Act, 2005. The notice was regarding the imposition of a penalty against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notice was barred as per proviso (a) to Section 49(3), which states that no proceeding shall be initiated after three years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The petitioner contended that the notice issued on 26-12-2016 was beyond the three-year limit from the order passed on 29-7-2013. The petitioner sought to quash the notice on this ground.The Court examined the provisions of Section 49(3) of the Act, 2005, which empowers the Commissioner to revise orders if prejudicial to revenue. Proviso (a) to Section 49(3) sets a time limit of three calendar years from the date of the order sought to be revised for initiating proceedings. The Court analyzed the meaning of the term 'initiate' in legal context, referring to dictionaries and legal sources. It emphasized that initiation of revisional proceedings occurs when the authority applies its mind to the case and decides to issue a notice to the concerned party.Drawing parallels with the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court highlighted that initiation of proceedings involves the authority applying its mind and deciding to proceed, not merely the receipt of a notice by the party. The Court clarified that in this case, the revisional authority had initiated proceedings well within the three-year limit from the date of the original order imposing a penalty. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the notice issued on 26-12-2016 was valid and within the statutory time limit. The Court distinguished cited judgments as not applicable to the present case, concluding that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it at the admission stage without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
