Dismissal of Writ Petition Against Assessment Order under VAT Act Emphasizes Time Barred Appeals

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018 under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The Court emphasized that the inspection was conducted with proper authorization and highlighted the delay in filing the petition beyond the statutory period. Citing relevant legal principles, the Court ruled that High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions against assessment orders after the limitation period has expired. The dismissal was based on the petition being time-barred for appeal and the existence of alternative legal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018 under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007.

Impugned Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner challenged the Impugned Assessment Order dated 14.09.2018, referencing VAT No. 34730012817/2017-18 for the period April 2017 to June 2017, under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. The challenge stemmed from a Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2018, following an inspection on 10.02.2018, which the petitioner's counsel argued was contrary to the authorization under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, was unable to respond to the notice due to the deponent being hospitalized at the time.

Contentions:
The petitioner's counsel relied on specific cases to support the writ petition, while the Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) defended the Impugned Assessment Order. The respondents argued that there was proper authorization for the inspection conducted on 10.02.2018, authorized by the Commissioner of State Tax on 09.02.2018. They further contended that the writ petition was filed long after the limitation period for appeal had expired and that no reply was given to the notice dated 28.08.2018, leading to the passing of the Impugned Order.

Judgment:
The Court noted that the petitioner had authorized their accountant to provide the necessary documents during inspection, which was conducted with proper authorization. Emphasizing the delay in filing the writ petition beyond the limitation period, the Court cited a recent Supreme Court decision stating that High Courts cannot entertain writ petitions against assessment orders beyond the statutory period. Referring to the principles outlined in various cases, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing lack of merit and the petitioner's failure to respond in a timely manner. The dismissal was based on the grounds of the petition being time-barred for appeal and the availability of alternative remedies as prescribed by law.

---