The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal by the revenue against the VAT Tribunal. The Tribunal had set aside an order for assessment beyond the six-month limitation period from inspection. The High Court upheld the limitation bar. No substantial question of law was found.
The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
VATAP No.67 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.1.2011
State of Punjab & another.
-----Appellants.
Vs.
M/s V.S. Traders.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
VATAP No.67 of 2010
2
VATAP No.67 of 2010
3
been filed by framing regular assessment, taking into account material which may be available against the assessee.
The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE
January 10, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisional assessment order was passed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 30(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005?
Whether the VAT Tribunal correctly interpreted the concept of 'detection' in Section 30(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Punjab
M/s V.S. Traders
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
