2023 (9) TMI 1365 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses petitions challenging preassessment notices citing Rule 5(6) CST(P) Rules, stresses pre-intervention engagement.

UCAL Fuel System Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer – IAC

UCAL Fuel System Limited Versus Commercial Tax Officer – IAC - TMI Issues:The judgment involves challenges to preassessment notices on the basis of limitation under Rule 5(6) of the CST (P) Rules.Details of the Judgment:1. Background:The petitioner is engaged in the business of automotive fuel system parts sales and exports. Notices were issued for reversal of Input Tax Credit for various assessment years due to lack of appropriate statutory declaration forms.2. Petitioner's Case:a. The assessments are barred by limitation as per Rule 5(6) of the CST (P) Act.b. Limitation is a jurisdictional issue, making proceedings a nullity.c. The impugned notice invoking Section 9 of the CST Act is misconceived.3. Respondent's Case:a. The writ petitions are premature, and issues can be raised before the Assessing Authority.b. Initiation of assessment proceedings within the prescribed period is sufficient, regardless of the timing of the assessment order.4. Court's Decision:The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, citing the need for restraint in interference. The issue of limitation can be addressed by the issuing authority, and the petitioner can submit objections. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to file objections within six weeks for consideration by the Respondent.Conclusion:The judgment emphasizes the importance of addressing jurisdictional issues like limitation at the appropriate stage of assessment proceedings, highlighting the need for parties to engage with the Assessing Authority before seeking judicial intervention.