2020 (4) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the learned Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12985/2018. 2. The writ petition aforesaid was preferred by the petitioner against the show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Commercial Taxes Department, Sri Ganganagar for initiating proceedings against the petitioner assessee under the provisions of the Rajasthan Valued Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the Vat Act'). 3. The Principal contention of the petitioner before the learned Single bench was that the recommendation for registration of the case against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 61 of the Vat Act vide communication dated 21.02.2018/23.02.2018 and 13.03.2018 followed by the notice dated 21.03.2018 and 23.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te record, the authority conducting the survey submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, and recommended to register the case against them under Section 61 of the VAT Act. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), transferred the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar for further action. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes initiated the proceedings against the petitioners-assessees under Section 25, 18, 55 and 61(2) of the VAT Act for evasion of tax and reversal of the input credit. 10. In view of the factual position noticed as above, the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings against the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot exceeding six months. Needless to say that while computing the period of limitation, the period during which the assessment proceedings remained stayed on account of interim order passed by this court, is also liable to be excluded." 5. Mr. Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned order is based on a totally mis-appreciation of the admitted facts available on record. He drew the court's attention to the Vat-14 Form (Annex.4) and other similar forms issued by the respondent authorities and urged that these forms were issued in the year 2016, whereas, the impugned notices came to be issued as late as in the month of March 2018. The statutory period for initiating the p....