High Court upholds dismissal of Writ Petitions challenging assessment summons, advises raising objections during assessment.

The High Court affirmed the dismissal of Writ Petitions challenging summons for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, holding the notices valid to commence assessment proceedings. The Court found the petitions premature, emphasizing objections should be raised before the assessing authority. The Single Judge's decision was upheld, advising the petitioner to raise objections during assessment. The Writ Petitions were dismissed with liberty to respond to the notice of proposal and for a personal hearing. The Court directed the assessing authority to address objections during assessment. Writ Appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded, closing related CMPs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of summons/preassessment notices dated 28.5.2018 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15.
2. Interpretation of Section 24(5) of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act regarding the limitation period for assessment.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, M/s. Murugan & Co., filed intra court appeals challenging the order dismissing their Writ Petitions against the summons/preassessment notices dated 28.5.2018 for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15. The Single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petitions, allowing the petitioner to raise objections before the assessing authority. The impugned notices were considered as the commencement of assessment proceedings, not barred by limitation, and the court did not express any view on the merits of the case. The Writ Petitions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to respond within two weeks to the notice of proposal, followed by a personal hearing and assessment order within six weeks.

2. The petitioner contended that Section 24(5) of the Pondicherry Value Added Tax Act prohibits assessments beyond three years, making the summons/pre-assessment notice illegal. However, the High Court, after hearing the arguments, found that the Writ Petitions were premature and rightly dismissed by the Single Judge. The court emphasized that objections, including those related to limitation, should have been raised before the assessing authority for proper consideration during the assessment process. The High Court concluded that the petitioner was advised wrongly in filing the Writ Petitions and upheld the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the petitions with liberty to raise objections before the assessing authority.

In the final judgment, the High Court, consisting of Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari and Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar, affirmed the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, finding no error in the Single Judge's decision. The court noted that the assessing authority should address the objections raised by the petitioner during the assessment proceedings after providing a personal hearing. Consequently, the Writ Appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected CMP. Nos. 4498, 4460, 4406, 4404 of 2020 were closed as a result of the judgment.

---