M/S Dlf Projects Limited vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 July, 2023
6. It would not be out of place to mention here that the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner restricted his argument to the extent of
challenge as to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.12.2021 and has
not pressed the ground challenging the vires of Section 174 (2) and (3) of
HGST Act, 2017. He strenuously argued that the impugned show cause
notice was liable to be quashed as it was issued in violation of principles of
natural justice and was without jurisdiction. He submitted that by issuing
the impugned notice, the respondent No.2 was seeking to re-examine the
books of account of the petitioner pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12 which he
was not competent to ask for as under Section 29 (2) (e) of the HVAT Act.
The petitioner was responsible for preserving its account books only for a
period of eight years after the close of the year to which the books related
and as the period of eight years stood expired as on 31.03.2020, therefore,
the petitioner could not be compelled to produce the books of account
which it was not statutorily required to maintain after 31.03.2020. He
further argued that no illegality or impropriety in the remand assessment
order dated 02.08.2017 was either made out or pointed out in the impugned
notice and, therefore, the respondent No.2 could not invoke jurisdiction
under Section 34 of VAT Act to revise the remand assessment order. While
stressing that the petitioner was within its right to file this petition under the
provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he argued that the
4 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2023 23:33:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:093421-DB
Civil Writ Petition No.2889 of 2022 (O&M) -5-
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:093421-DB
same was maintainable even though alternative remedy had not been
availed by the petitioner and, therefore, urged that the impugned show cause
notice was liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserved to be allowed.
To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance
upon authorities cited as M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. The Excise and
Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, AIR 2023 SC
781; Rafat Ali v. Sugni Bai and others, (1999) 1 SCC 133; Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, AIR 2014 SC 3708; BSL
Limited v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and others, 2015 SCC
OnLine Raj 3928; V.K. Uchal v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Mysore, (1967) 20 STC 67 & Haryana Agro Industries Corporation
Limited v. State of Haryana and others, (2001) ILR 2 Punjab and
Haryana, 603.