Individual notice is mandatory before extending assessment limitation; a website notice alone cannot sustain the assessment.

Prior notice and an opportunity before extending the assessment period under the Punjab Value Added Tax regime required service of an individual notice; a general notice uploaded on the departmental website was insufficient under Rule 86. The HC followed its earlier view that website publication does not satisfy the statutory mode of notice, and held that individual notice is a sine qua non for invoking the proviso to Section 29(4). Because no such notice was served, the extension of limitation was invalid and the assessment order founded on that extension could not stand, and was liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order could be sustained when the extension of limitation was granted and communicated only by a general notice uploaded on the departmental website without service of an individual notice, as required for action under the proviso to Section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 86 of the Chandigarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006.

Analysis: The Court followed the earlier view that Rule 86 does not contemplate service by a general notice or by mere publication on the website. It held that an individual notice is a sine qua non before invoking the power to extend the period for framing assessment. Since no individual notice was served and the petitioners were not given the required opportunity, the assessment made on the basis of the extended period could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessment order was invalid and liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the statutory notice requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires prior notice and opportunity before extending the assessment period, service of an individual notice is mandatory and a general website notice is insufficient; an assessment founded on such defective extension is void.

---