TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal No.84 of 2013. The State of Punjab impugns the correctness of order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh, accepting an appeal filed by the respondent and as a consequence. setting aside orders dated 23.4.2012 and 30.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridkot Division, office at Bathinda and the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Bathinda, respectively. A brief reference of facts would be appropriate. A large number of cases, including the cases in hand, were selected for re-assessment by invoking Section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), but as the period of three years, provided for re-assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was not possible for the department to personally serve each assessee by an individual notice, within the extended period of limitation. The method adopted by the department, therefore, cannot be faulted. Counsel for the State of Punjab relies upon a judgment in Rai Vimal Krishna and others versus State of Bihar and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2676, to contend that in a similar case, though relating to a Municipal Corporation, a public notice has been held to be sufficient service. It is prayed that the impugned order may be set side and the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal, to decide the appeal on merits. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order. Section 29 (3) of the Act empowers the Commissioner,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 86 of the 2005 Rules, provides for the mode and manner of serving notices in the following terms:- "(a) by delivery by hand or through courier, of a copy of the notice to the addressee or to any other agent, duly authorised in this behalf by him or to a person, regularlyemployed by him in connection with the business in respect of which he is registered as a person or to any adult male member of his family residing with the person; or (b) by registered post; (c) by e-mail. Rule 86 of the Rules does not envisage service of a general notice or by publication on the website, of the department. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce a few relevant paragraphs from the order passed by the Tribunal:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on proceedings before the extension was granted or that the extension order was individually communicated to the persons who were to be affected by it....." XX XX XX XX In the case at hand, the assessment year being 2006-07, the last return was due to be filed by 20.11.2007. The limitation prescribed for framing assessment U/s 29(4) of the Act, 2005 being three years, the assessment could have been framed by 20.11.2010 unless the time limit was extended in a manner as enunciated in A.B.Sugars Ltd. (Supra). The extension order dated 15.11.2010 being not in adherence to the spirit of A.B.Sugars Ltd. (supra) cannot be deemed to be valid and legal. Sequelly, such extension cannot be taken note of. If it is so, there can be....