2016 (5) TMI 4

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Respondent : Mr. Vikas Cuccria, Advocate, Mr. Vikram Sharda, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CWP Nos. 16031 and 26000 of 2015 as according to learned counsel for the parties, the questions of law and facts involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 16031 of 2015. 2. Through the instant petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....VAT-56. 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petitions as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of printing materials like multicolor labels, pharma foils, corrugated boxes etc. On 15.12.2005, the Central Government extended the Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh for levy and collection of VAT and turnover tax on the sal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) extended the period of limitation by a general order for the year 2007-08 by uploading the same on its official website without any service upon the petitioner under Rule 86 of the Chandigarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). As per proviso to Section 29(4) of the Act, if the Commissioner grants an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rly Olam Export India Ltd.)] upheld the order of the Tribunal by observing that the extension of limitation period without proper service was not valid. Further, this Court vide order dated 27.4.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 15695 of 2014 (Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another) held that Rule 86 of the Rules does not envisage service of a general notice or by pu....