JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - These writ petitions are directed against show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti Evasion), Department of Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, initiating the proceedings against the petitioners-assessees under the provisions of Section 25, 18, 55 and 61(2) of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "the VAT Act"). 2. Since all these writ petitions are based on similar facts and involve identical questions, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience the facts of S.B.C.Writ Petition No.12985/18 are taken into consideration as a lead case. 3. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern, is a dealer registered under the provisions of the VAT Act. A survey was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward I of the place of business of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 75 of the VAT Act. During the survey, the petitioner-assessee did not produce the books of account and therefore, vide notice dated 25.4.16 issued by the said authority the petitioner was directed to produce sale and purchase vouchers, bilties, books of account, bank transaction statement, VAT declarations etc. from the date of registration of the business concern till the date of survey. The said notice was followed by notices dated 11.5.16, 20.5.16 and 13.11.17. 4. After the petitioner producing the requisite record, the authority which conducted the survey, submitted the inspection report to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar and recommended for registration of the case against it under the provisions of Section 61 of the Act, vide communication dated 21.2.18/23.2.18. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes vide communication dated 13.3.18, transferred the proceedings for further action to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar, who in its turn issued the impugned notices dated 21.3.18, 23.3.18 to the petitioner-assessee initiating proceedings under Section 25, 18, 55 and 61(2) of VAT Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the action of the Assessing Authority in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 25 of the VAT Act beyond the period of limitation is ex facie without jurisdiction and thus, impugned notices deserve to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the action of the Assessing Authority in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 25 of the VAT Act beyond the period of limitation is ex facie without jurisdiction and thus, impugned notices deserve to be set aside. Drawing the attention of this court to the provisions of Section 25(3) of the VAT Act, learned counsel submitted that no assessment under Section 25(1) can be made after expiry of the period of six months from the date of making out of the case. Learned counsel submitted that in the first instance, the notices were issued by the Assessing Authority to the assessees to verify the books of account, after conducting survey of the business premises on 25.4.16 and thereafter, further notices were issued. Drawing the attention of the court to the notice dated 20.5.16 issued by the Assessing Authority, learned counsel submitted that in the said notice it is specifically mentioned that Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioners is liable to be reversed due to bogus purchases and thus, though, the notice is purported to be issued under Section 75(1) of the Act, the intention of the Assessing Authority was expressly to reverse the ITC claimed by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 25(3) of the Act, for making assessment shall start from the issuance of the notice as aforesaid and therefore, after expiry of the period of six months from the date of said notice, the assessment order proposed to be passed has become time barred. Learned counsel submitted that after expiry of the period of limitation, the proceeding initiated for assessment under Section 25 of the Act suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and therefore, deserve to be quashed for this reason alone. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the objection regarding the proceedings initiated being barred by limitation can always be raised by the petitioners before the Assessing Authority, which is competent to decide the question with regard to his own jurisdiction and thus, instead of filing reply to the show cause notice, the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners straight away before this court challenging the action of the Assessing Authority in initiating the proceedings is not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to order issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, the survey of the business premises of the petitioners was conducted under Section 75 of the VAT Act on 25.4.16. At the time of survey, the record produced by the petitioners, revealed that the petitioners had availed ITC under Form 7A for the year 2012- 13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereas, no physical transfer of the goods had taken place. Upon inspection of the books of account, the Anti Evasion authority prepared the inspection report dated 21.2.18/23.2.18, which was forwarded to Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, with the recommendation to register the case against the petitioners under Section 61(2) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Administration) in its turn vide order dated 13.3.18 transferred the proceedings for further action to the Assistant Commissioner, Circle Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar and thereupon, for the first time, the notice under Section 25, 18, 55 & 61(2) was issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner, Anti Evasion on 21.3.18 and therefore, the limitation in terms of provisions of Section 25(3) shall commence from the date of the issuance of the notice as aforesaid and not prior to it. Learned counsel submitted that the notice dated 25.4.16 followed by other notices, were issued to the petitioners under Section 75(1) of the VAT Act to produce books of account for verification. Learned counsel submitted that after completion of the investigation by the investigating officer when a prima facie case is made out, the case is put up before the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) for necessary action and thereafter, the appropriate proceeding as per the directions has been initiated against the petitioner-assessee by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act and thus, by no stretch of imagination, the proceeding initiated could be treated to be barred by limitation. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy raised in the instant petitions rolls around the provisions of Section 25 and 75 (1) of the Act, which may be beneficially quoted: "25. Assessment in case of avoidance or evasion of tax. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels and perused the material on record. 8. The controversy raised in the instant petitions rolls around the provisions of Section 25 and 75 (1) of the Act, which may be beneficially quoted: "25. Assessment in case of avoidance or evasion of tax. (1) Where the assessing authority or any officer authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf has reasons to believe that a dealer has avoided or evaded tax or has not paid tax in accordance with law or has availed input tax credit wrongly, be may after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine at any time and for any period that taxable turnover of such dealer on which tax has been avoided or evaded or has not been paid in accordance with law or wrong input tax credit has been availed and assess the tax to the best of his judgment. (2) The tax assessed under sub-section (1), after adjustment of input tax credit and the amount deposited in advance in this behalf, if any, shall be payable by the dealer within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of demand. However the assessing authority any officer authorized by the Commissioner, after recording reasons in writing, may reduce such period. (3) The assessment under sub-section (1) shall not be made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of making out the case. However, the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in any particular case, extend this time limit for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where notice has been issued under sub-section (1), the authority issuing such notice shall be competed to make the assessment for the relevant year. (5) No notice under sub-section (1) shall be issued after the expiry of five years from the end of the relevant year. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) and (5), where any proceeding relating to an assessment is subject to adjudication before the Tax Board or a competent court or any other authority under this Act, assessment in such matters may be passed within two years from the final adjudication of such proceedings. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) and (5), where any proceeding relating to an assessment is subject to adjudication before the Tax Board or a competent court or any other authority under this Act, assessment in such matters may be passed within two years from the final adjudication of such proceedings. The limitation of two years shall be counted from the date of communication of the order of such final adjudication to the assessing authority. Explanation. For the purpose of this section the expression "date of making out the case" means the date on which notice in pursuance of this section is issued for the first time to the dealer." "75. Power of entry, inspection and seizure of accounts and goods.-(1) An assessing authority or any officer not below the rank of Junior Commercial Taxes Officer authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf with such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by the Commissioner, shall have the power- (a) to inspect or survey the place of business of a dealer or any other place where it is believed by such authority or officer that business is being done or accounts are being kept by such dealer. (b) to direct such dealer to produce accounts, registers and documents relating to his business activities for examination. (c) to inspect the goods in the possession of the dealer or in the possession of anybody else on behalf of such dealer, wherever such goods are placed. (d) to make search of such place including the search of the person found there, where concealment of facts relating to business is suspected. (e) to break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the dealer are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, box or receptacle is denied. (f) to record the statement of the dealer or his manager, agent or servant or to take extracts from any record and to put identification marks on accounts, registers or documents and on any door, almirah, box or receptacle. Explanation:- There shall be a presumption in respect of goods, accounts, registers or documents, which are found at any place of business of a dealer during any inspection or search, that they relate to his business unless the contrary is proved by him." 9. Explanation:- There shall be a presumption in respect of goods, accounts, registers or documents, which are found at any place of business of a dealer during any inspection or search, that they relate to his business unless the contrary is proved by him." 9. Indisputably, the survey of the business premises of the petitioners was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward I Circle, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar on 25.4.16. After the survey, vide notice dated 25.4.16 issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 75 (1) of the VAT Act, the petitioners were directed to produce the sale, purchase voucher, bilties, books of accounts, bank transaction statement, VAT declarations from the date of registration of the firm till the date of survey, which were not produced by them at the time of survey. The notices issued on 25.4.16 were in conformity with the provisions of Section 75(1)(b), which empowers the officer not below the rank of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to direct the dealer to produce accounts, registers and documents relating to business activities for examination. The subsequent notices were also issued under Section 75(1) of the VAT Act inasmuch as, pursuant to the notice dated 25.4.16, the petitioners-assessees had sought time to produce the record but failed to do so. The proceedings remained pending on account of the petitioners not producing the record. It is not disputed before this court that after the petitioners producing the requisite record, the authority conducting the survey submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Sriganganagar, and recommended to register the case against them under Section 61 of the VAT Act. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), transferred the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anti Evasion, Sriganganagar for further action. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes initiated the proceedings against the petitioners-assessees under Section 25, 18, 55 and 61(2) of the VAT Act for evasion of tax and reversal of the input credit. 10. In view of the factual position noticed as above, the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings against them under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act were initiated after making out the case vide notice dated 25.4.16 purported to be issued under Section 75(1) of the VAT Act, cannot be accepted by this court. 10. In view of the factual position noticed as above, the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings against them under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act were initiated after making out the case vide notice dated 25.4.16 purported to be issued under Section 75(1) of the VAT Act, cannot be accepted by this court. Apparently, the notices issued prior to the impugned notices, were the notices issued directing the petitioners to produce the relevant record so as to enable the Assessing Authority to arrive at the conclusion regarding the evasion/avoidance of tax or the petitioners wrongly availing the ITC and the same cannot be construed to be notices issued under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act. The documents on record in no manner reflects that the notices referred to by the petitioners were issued after making out the case against them rather, the same were issued by the Assessing Authority after the survey to procure the relevant record from the petitioners and the decision to initiate the proceedings was taken only after submission of the inspection report and the recommendations made by the authority, who conducted the survey of the business premises of the petitioners. Thus, the date of notices issued under Section 25(1) of the VAT Act needs to be taken as the date of making out the case against the petitioners and the Assessing Authority would be well within its jurisdiction in passing the assessment order within the period of six months from the date of the said notice, which for the reasons recorded in writing in a particular case may be further extended by the Commissioner for a period not exceeding six months. Needless to say that while computing the period of limitation, the period during which the assessment proceedings remained stayed on account of interim order passed by this court, is also liable to be excluded. 11. In view of the discussion above, the notices issued by the Assessing Authority initiating the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be said to have been issued acting without jurisdiction and therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this court in favour of each of the petitioners staying the further proceedings pursuant to impugned notice, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.