Petitioners challenged VAT reassessment orders passed without adhering to natural justice and alleged delayed communication affecting limitation. Court quashed impugned orders and directed fresh assessment hearing within four months.
Impugned orders quashed; fresh orders to be passed after fair hearing within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~39-64
LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. N. Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Mr. Rajeev Mishra and Mr. R. Satish, Advocates.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR...... Respondents Through: Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. R.A. Iyer, Mr. Vivek Paul, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Mr. Tushar Bhardwaj, Advocates along with Mr. Kamaldeep Gupta, Assistant commissioner (Spl. Zone).
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
%
O R D E R 08.12.2016
In all these proceedings, the petitioners’ common complaint is that the orders made by the VATO/Assistant Commissioner in reassessment proceedings were without adhering to the principle of
natural justice. It is also contended additionally that though the order was ostensibly made on 8.12.2014, the order was in fact not communicated before 12.12.2014, thus delaying the period of limitation spelt out under the provisions of the DVAT Act. In this regard it is stated that this Court had directed the respondents to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners by its order dated 12.12.2013.
At the outset, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned senior counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi states upon instructions that the claim in the petitions would not be opposed insofar as they seek fresh hearing in accordance with law. He, however, contests that the impugned orders dated 08.12.2014 were made beyond the period of limitation.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, especially those on behalf of the respondents by their senior counsel, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice requires that the fresh orders be made in accordance with law. Consequently, impugned orders dated 08.12.2014 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall endeavour to complete the proceedings after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioners at their earliest convenience and in any event within four months from today.
The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
DECEMBER 08, 2016 / vikas /
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 08.12.2014 was valid when not communicated to petitioners before 12.12.2014 affecting limitation period?
Whether the impugned orders depriving natural justice to petitioners should be quashed to make fresh orders?
Whether limitation for fresh assessment proceedings under DVAT Act became time barred?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Larsen & Toubro Limited & Anr.
Commissioner of Value Added Tax & Anr.
S. Ravindra Bhat
Najmi Waziri
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
