HC restrains govt from passing order

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Tuesday restrained the Haryana excise and taxation department from passing final order on a notice served on Skylight Hospitality Private Limited, a company promoted by Robert Vadra —sonin-law of Congress president Sonia Gandhi — in a 2012 land deal between the firm and DLF Limited. Restraining the government, the bench of justice AK Mittal and justice Raj Rahul Garg has sought response from it by April 4. The court also asked as to why the proceedings initiated by the department should not be stayed.

T he matter per tains to Shikohpur land deal in Gurgaon between Skylight and DLF. The firm in its petition has sought documents/records on the basis of which the October 2015 notice by the excise department under section 16 of the Haryana Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2003 was sent to Skylight.

The sale deed for the 3.53-acre deal between Vadra’s firm and DLF took place on the payment of stamp duty and other statutory charges in 2012.Senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram, appearing for firm told the court it had not sold the commercial colony license and was only transferred to DLF after the government permission.

On the other hand, notice was served by the government stating that the development of project was covered by the definition of word “goods” under the Act and that license was sold by firm to DLF. The proceeds of the sale would therefore constitute sale price exigible to tax under the Act.

Atma Ram told the court that after the notice was served, it made representations to the department to provide record on the basis of which assessment was made. However, it failed to get the requisite documents and department initiated further proceedings without supplying the same.

The firm has also accused Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) gover nment in Haryana of “systematic vendetta” without referring to Vadra, alleging that in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections in 2014 and later state assembly elections, frequent “unsubstantiated allegations” were levelled against one of the directors. The firm has termed VAT notice as part of same vendetta and based on “wrong facts” and “perverse interpretation” of law and facts. HTC