2023 (9) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5 (6) of the Central Sales Tax (Puducherry) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "CST (P) Rules"). The Following table is relevant: S.No. W.P.Nos. Assessment year Prayer Date of issuance of pre-assessment notice 1. W.P.No.19959 of 2021 2014-15 Challenging the preassessment notice dated 19.07.2021 10.07.2020 2. W.P.No.19964 of 2021 2015-16 Challenging the preassessment notice dated 19.07.2020 (appears to be a typographical error with regard to AY 2015-16 wherein instead of 19.07.2021 it has been typed as 19.07.2020.) 10.07.2020 3. W.P.No.19968 of 2021 2016-17 Challenging the preassessment notice dated 10.07.2020 10.07.2020 4. W.P.No.19971 of 2021 2017-18 Challenging t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inputs only in excess of the rate prescribed under Section 8(1) of the CST Act, whereas, the petitioner had claimed the entire tax paid on its purchases as input tax credit. Initially summons dated 14.09.2017 for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and on 20.09.2018 for the assessment year 2017-18 were issued calling upon the petitioner to produce the various documents such as purchase and sales invoices, ITC claimed details along with invoice, Bank statement, Form "CC" Income Tax statement / declarations forms C/H/F/I for Concession availed / payment received details. 2.3. It may be relevant to note that for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 pre-assessment notices were issued on 10.07.2020 prior to the impugned noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in support of their claim of export for the various years was being submitted. Further, some more declaration forms and documents were filed by the petitioner on 07.09.2020, 21.09.2020, 09.11.2020 in support of the claim of concessional rate and exemption as evident from the following extracts: Letter dated 07.09.2020: "We have already submitted a substantial value of Rs 33.7 Crs of Documents (Invoices & Bill of Lading) for the exports done by us from the period 2010-11 (Rs 13 16 Crs), 2011-12 (Rs 12.5 Crs), 2012-13 (Rs 3.7 Crs), 2013-2014 (Rs 0.77 Crs), 2014-2015 (Rs 2.25 Crs), 2015-2016 (Rs 0.86 Crs), 2016-2017 (Rs 0.15 Crs), & 2017-2018 ( Rs 0.30 Crs) on 06th August 2020. we uploaded a substantial value of C forms for a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....return submitted relates. Thus, the impugned preassessment notice issued after more than 5 years from the first notice is barred by limitation. b. That limitation relates to jurisdiction. Proceedings barred by limitation are a nullity, thereby, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. c. Thus the impugned notice invoking Section 9 of the CST Act r/w Section 24 of the PVAT Act is grossly misconceived inasmuch as the limitation in respect of the CST Act would be governed by Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) Rules, 1967 framed in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 13 of the CST Act and in particular Rule 5(5) and 5(6) of the Central Sales Tax (Pondicherry) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. 6. Before proceeding further, it may be necessary to examine the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue that non-interference at the stage of show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being the normal rule, this batch of writ petitions are liable to be rejected. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in response that the question here is that the impugned notices are barred by limitation thus lacking jurisdiction and would fall within the exceptions carved out for entertaining the writ petitions. 7. Though the question here relates to one of limitation, this Court is not inclined to entertain the batch of writ petitions at the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "3. According to the appellants, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived as it challenges a show-cause notice and in any event the final relief as sought for by Respondent 1-writ petitioner in relation to the show-cause notice should not have been granted by an interim order of the nature passed by withholding any further action in this regard. It was pointed out that Respondent 1 is responsible for financial irregularities involving nearly Rs 270 crores and documents have been forged, accounts have been manipulated; and in any event Respondent 1 was free to canvass all the points that were taken in the writ petition before the authority issuing the notice. Instead of doing that, he rushed to the High Court and unfortunately the High ....