(1.) PRAYER in this petition filed under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated January 13, 2014, annexure P9, passed by respondent No. 2 -Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner -cum -Designated Officer, being in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction as the tax has been levied on such transactions which are assessable under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act") in the State from where the movement of goods has originated. Direction has also been sought for restraining the respondents from enforcing recovery of any tax, interest or penalty in view of the impugned order. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a dealer registered both under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the PVAT Act") and the CST Act with respondent No. 2. It has been regularly filing the prescribed returns and paying the VAT due on adjustment of TDS/ITC, respectively. It is involved in execution of project works in most of the States including the State of Punjab. It filed the audit report in form VAT 20 dated November 20, 2011 under the PVAT Act. The petitioner was served with notices under section 29(2) of the PVAT Act dated June 7, 2013 for assessment years 2009 -10 to 2011 -12. Subsequently, on July 26, 2013, the Assessing Authority again issued notice under section 29(2) of the PVAT Act proposing to carry assessment exercise simultaneously for three years as mentioned above. The petitioner furnished details, records and books of account, etc. It also submitted letter dated December 13, 2013, annexure P6, addressed to Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Chandigarh, being representation for intervention and request to advise suitably the assessing authority. It was again served with a notice dated December 18, 2013, annexure P7, alleging that it had converted the material purchased outside the State into sales in transit to evade tax payment. It was asked to appear on December 27, 2013 and to show cause as to why deduction claimed on account of E -1 sales and excess deductions should not be disallowed and the material consumed in the execution of works contract be not taxed. After examining the matter, the Designated Officer passed the impugned assessment order dated January 13, 2014, annexure P9, for the year 2010 -11 under the PVAT Act raising an additional demand of Rs. 71,76,76,869 involving VAT Rs. 30,34,57,450, penalty under section 53 of the Act of Rs. 23,66,96,811 and interest under section 32(3) of the PVAT Act of Rs. 17,75,22,608. Hence the present petition by the petitioner.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) EXAMINING the scope of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India where disputed questions of facts are involved, a Division Bench of this court in N.C. Mahendra v. Haryana State Electricity Board : AIR 1984 P&H 26 had laid down the following guidelines: