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) whereby the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority with direction to decide the issues raised in terms of provisions of law after providing a fair opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The matter was then listed before the respondent No.3 assessing authority who disposed of the remand proceedings vide order dated 02.08.2017 while giving opportunity to the petitioner and determined the tax liability of the petitioner as VAT amounting to Rs.5,31,96,919/- and CST of Rs.16,60,925/-. After adjusting the tax amount already deposited, input tax credit and tax deducted at source on work contract, the liability of the petitioner was fixed @ Rs.5,69,41,965/-.

3. It was further submitted that on 30.12.2021, a show cause notice for revision of the remand assessment order was issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 34 of the HVAT Act and Section 9 (2) of the CST Act alleging as many as nine illegalities/improprieties in the assessment order dated 02.08.2017 as passed by the respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 30.12.2021 has made prayer for quashing the same on the grounds that no case for invoking jurisdiction under Section 34 of the HVAT Act had been made out in favour of respondent No.2 as there was no illegality or impropriety in the assessment order dated 02.08.2017. It is alleged that by issuing the impugned notice, the respondent No.2 is seeking to re-examine the books of account of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 29 (2) (e) of the HVAT Act. It is submitted that since the assessment proceedings were for the A.Y. 2011-12 and the period of eight years stood expired on 31.03.2020 and no proceedings for revision were pending against the petitioner as on 30.12.2021 when the impugned notice was issued, therefore, the notice for revision could not be said to be maintainable being time barred. It has also been alleged that the power of revision could not be exercised by respondent No.2 against the findings of fact recorded by the assessing authority even if he did not agree with the same. While further alleging that the impugned notice had been issued by the respondent No.2 by unlawfully invoking the powers under Section 34 of the HVAT Act and that the provi