S.J. Vazifdar, J.

The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment to section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the PVAT Act) by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 ((hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). They have also sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 23.09.2014.

The challenge before us was restricted to the constitutional validity of Section 29 as amended. There were several connected petitions. It was agreed that the result in those petitions would follow the result of this petition. We, therefore, also heard all the counsel who appeared in the connected petitions. As all the petitioners restricted the challenge to the constitutional validity of the amended section 29, it is, necessary to refer to the facts only briefly. We will for convenience refer to the facts from this Civil Writ Petition No. 21811 of 2014.

2. The petitioners had set up a plant for manufacturing vanaspati and other edible oils in the State of Punjab. It is registered under the PVAT Act'. Prior thereto the petitioner was also registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (PGST Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The PVAT Act was enacted inter-alia to provide for the levy and collection of Value Added Tax (VAT) and turnover tax on the sales or purchases of goods and for the repeal of the PGST Act. Upon the PVAT Act coming into force, the petitioner made an application for a registration certificate under that Act which was granted. The petitioner is registered as a "Taxable Person/Registered person" under the provisions of the PVAT Act for the manufacture and sale of its products. It also continues to be registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1966 and the rules framed thereunder.

3. The petitioner was issued the impugned notice dated 23.09.2014 for framing the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 under section 29 of the PVAT Act and under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1966 by the Excise and Taxation Officer. The facts leading to the issuance of the impugned notice are as follows.

A notice dated 12.08.2011 was addressed to the petitioner by the Excise and Taxation Inspector under Section 29(2) of the PVAT Act and under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act stating that upon examination of the petitioner's tax return for the accounting year 2006-07, it was found that the returns were incorrect and incomplete; that there were definitive reasons to believe that the petitioner was liable to pay tax but that it had failed to do so; that it had availed input tax credit which it was not eligible for and that there was mismatch of the data. The notice further states that it was, therefore, intended to frame the assessment under section 29(2) of the PVAT Act and 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act for the accounting year 2006-07 to determine the petitioner's tax liability for the said period.

According to the petitioner, the Excise & Taxation Inspector-cum-Designated Officer realised that the assessment could not be made for the accounting year 2006-07 as it was beyond the period of three years after the date when the annual statement was filed and that there was no extension of time to make the assessment granted by the Commissioner. The officer, therefore, did not pursue the matter any further. The petitioner contends that it has in any event been paying the tax in accordance with law. We are, however, not concerned with the merits in this petition. We confine ourselves to the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 29. By the impugned notice dated 23.09.2014, the respondents have sought to open the assessment for the year 2006-07.

4. The Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs, Punjab, notified the Punjab Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2013 (Amendment Act) on 15.11.2013. By Section 6 of the Amendm