- (1.) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CWP Nos. 16031 and 26000 of 2015 as according to learned counsel for the parties, the questions of law and facts involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 16031 of 2015.
(2.) Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) under proviso to Section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") for extension of limitation period for the assessment year 2007-08; for quashing the assessment order dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-2) whereby tax had been levied upon the petitioner(s) for the assessment year 2007-08 even though the assessment had already become barred by limitation in view of Section 29(4) of the Act as applicable to UT, Chandigarh on 20.11.2011 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the payment of tax on the basis of demand notice issued in Form No. VAT-56. 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petitions as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of printing materials like multicolor labels, pharma foils, corrugated boxes etc. On 15.12.2005, the Central Government extended the Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh for levy and collection of VAT and turnover tax on the sales or purchases of goods and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and repealed the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as applicable to UT, Chandigarh. The petitioner had filed its return for the year 2007-08 on quarterly basis in Form VAT-15. On the basis thereof, statement showing a gross turnover of Rs. 13,13,83,980/- was also filed. As per Section 29(4) of the Act, the assessment of the dealer could have been framed only within a period of three years from the last date of filing of the annual statement. Since, in the present case, the annual statement in Form VAT-20 was filed on 20.11.2008 for the assessment year 2007- 08, the assessment, if any, could have been framed only upto 20.11.2011, i.e. within a period of three years. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) extended the period of limitation by a general order for the year 2007-08 by uploading the same on its official website without any service upon the petitioner under Rule 86 of the Chandigarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). As per proviso to Section 29(4) of the Act, if the Commissioner grants any extension of period for framing assessment, then it is imperative on the part of the department to provide an opportunity of hearing before granting any such extension. In the present case, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the assessment was finalized exparte vide order dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-2) by creating an additional demand. Similar order passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab extending the period of limitation had been set aside by the Tribunal holding that the extension is not valid in terms of judgment of this Court in A.B. Sugars Limited v. State of Punjab and others,2010 29 VST 538 (P&H). The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2013 passed in VATAP No. 84 of 2013 [State of Punjab v. M/s Olam Agro India Ltd. (formerly Olam Export India Ltd.)] upheld the order of the Tribunal by observing that the extension of limitation period without proper service was not valid. Further, this Court vide order dated 27.4.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 15695 of 2014 (Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and another) held that Rule 86 of the Rules does not envisage service of a general notice or by publication on the website of the department and that the absence of individual notices rendered the assessment order illegal and void. Hence, the present writ petitions for quashing the extension order as well as the assessment order passed by respondent No.2.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;