TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions between the same parties, therefore, we propose to decide the same by this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition of facts. However, for facilitation, the bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention, have been extracted from VAT Revision No. 10 of 2009 titled as "Patiala Auto Enterprises v. State of Punjab". The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for re-determination of tax liability, vide order dated May 20, 1998 (annexure P2). Aggrieved by the order (annexure P2), the assessee filed the revision, which was dismissed by the Chairman, Value Added Tax, Punjab, vide order dated April 3, 2008 (annexure P6). The assessee still did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (annexure P6) and filed the present revision petitions, which were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed?" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petitions. The main argument of the learned counsel that since no notice was issued to the assessee, so, the order (annexure P2) passed by the revisional authority after more than five years is time-barred, illegal and not binding on it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the firm on May 6, 1998 within a period of five years from the date of passing the original assessment order. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be said that the revisional authority passed the order without issuing the notice after five years of the original assessment order, as urged on behalf of the assessee. Thus, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee deserve to ....