Point of law: It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Gujarat Tax on Entry of Specified Goods into Local Areas Act, 2001 (“the Entry Tax Act” for short) on the ground of the same is unconstitutional and violative of Article 304(A) of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

2.1. Petitioner No.1 is a Public Limited Company having its place of business at Sanand. The second petitioner is authorised signatory of the first petitioner. The petitioner is engaged in the business of logistic services. For the said purpose, the petitioner purchased trucks that are used for transporting the goods from the premises of customers to ports/inland depots and office vise versa. The petitioner has a place of business in the State of Gujarat as well as in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner purchased seven trucks in the financial year 2006-07. They were taxable under the Rajasthan Vat Tax Act, 2003 (“the Rajasthan VAT Act” for short). During the relevant years, the trucks were purchased on payment of such tax under the VAT Act at Rajasthan. These trucks were registered with RTO authority in Gujarat. Seven trucks were brought in the year 2007-08 and one truck was brought in the year 2008-09.

2.2. The petitioners since purchased the trucks after the payment of tax at the rate of 12.5% under the Rajasthan VAT Act, it used such trucks in the State of Rajasthan and thereafter, brought them to the State of Gujarat. No tax as averred, was required to be paid on entry of such trucks in the State of Gujarat.

2.3. Section 6 of the Entry Tax required filing of the written challan only by person liable to pay under the Entry Tax Act, as the petitioners believed that they were liable to pay tax under the Entry Tax Act. As the petitioner was of a firm belief that they were not required to file the return, it did not file the return from Challan.

2.4. For more than 13 years of entry of the trucks into the State of Gujarat, no demand for the Entry Tax was made and after more than 13 years of entry of such trucks, suddenly, an inquiry started in July, 2021 regarding this issue. The petitioner informed the authority that the records were very old and they required time to gather the details and then to produce the same.

2.5. On 18.08.2021 Notice under the Entry Tax Act for the Assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 was issued. The petitioner responded to the said notice by reply dated 03.09.2021 urging that the notice had been issued after more than 13 years of entry of the vehicle and such unreasonable period, according to the settled law, would bar the period of limitation. Respondent No.2, despite objection, passed the order impugned under section 8(5) of the Entry Tax Act.

2.6. According to the petitioner, its contention has been rejected relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of M.H.Khansuiya vs. State of Gujarat, 2018 (57) GSTR 395 (Guj). It is worth noting that the Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgement has been dismissed by the Apex Court. According to the petitioner, it was shocking that the authority imposed the tax with penalty under the Entry Tax Act without taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle had been purchased in the State of Rajasthan on payment of Tax under the Rajasthan VAT Act and that fact was brought to the notice of the authority.

2.7. The petitioners made efforts for obtaining the purchase invoice in respect of these vehicles. The record of the earlier financial years was not available. They could not obtain it till the passing of the assessment order. However, the purchase invoices were available with the two respondent authorities.

2.8. According to the petitioner, after an unpardonable period when the entry of the goods is questioned, the petitioner, therefore, is before this court seeking following reliefs:

“37. In view of the aforesa