Back
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA
DLF Projects Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manisha Batra, J.
By filing this writ petition, the assessee has knocked at the doors of this Court for assailing a show cause notice dated 30.12.2021 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 34 of Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("HVAT Act") whereby it has been asked to show cause against the proposed revision of remand assessment order dated 02.08.2017 and has also challenged the vires of Section 174 (2) (3) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short "HGST Act").
2. The facts as pleaded in brief are that the petitioner-Company had been assessed for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12 by order dated 25.03.2015 passed by Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Gurugram (East) who after examining the books of account produced by the petitioner, had created an additional demand of a sum of Rs.8,97,43,496/- under HVAT Act and Rs.16,60,926/- under the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (for short "CST Act"). The petitioner challenged the abovesaid order dated 25.03.2015 by filing appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad. The said appeal was decided on 28.09.2016 (conveyed vide endorsement No.2341 dated 22.03.2017) whereb
The main legal point established in the judgment is that writ petitions challenging assessment orders may not be maintainable if an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available, unless there i....
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax improperly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, as the issues had already been addressed in the original assessment, invoking the doct....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to th....
Mandatory service of notice under tax law is crucial to validate assessment; failure vitiates proceedings and necessitates fresh assessment.
Limitation would arise under Section 29(6) of the Act, only in the event and at the stage of the application filed under Section 32 being allowed.
Composite show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under CGST/KGST Act are illegal as assessments must pertain to individual years, respecting statutory limitations and ensuring natural j....
Valid service of notice under section 148 is essential for jurisdiction; failure to serve invalidates the assessment order.
A petitioner must disclose all relevant facts when invoking writ jurisdiction; suppression of material facts can lead to dismissal of the petition.
When there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
