Pending proceeding requirement under VAT reassessment law failed where notice rested only on audit objections and was quashed.

Section 34(8A) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applies only when proceedings under the Act are already pending, and a reassessment notice founded solely on audit objections without any pending proceeding lacks jurisdiction. As no proceeding was pending and the authority relied only on audit objections, the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was absent and the notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 34(8A) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for reopening assessment could be sustained when no proceedings were pending against the dealer and the notice was founded only on audit objections.

Analysis: Section 34(8A) is attracted only during the course of pending proceedings under the VAT Act. The provision enables initiation of assessment where, in the course of such proceedings, the authority finds evasion, incorrect disclosure, or excess credit claim. In the present case, the authority did not identify any pending proceeding in which the audit objection arose. The material placed before the Court also showed that no proceeding was pending and that the proposed reassessment for the relevant year was sought solely on the basis of audit objections. On that construction, the jurisdictional precondition for invoking section 34(8A) was absent.

Conclusion: The notice was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. The challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 34(8A) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be invoked only when proceedings under the Act are already pending, and a reassessment notice issued without that jurisdictional foundation is invalid.

---