TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t contend that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. Jurisdiction - Held that:- Undoubtedly, Section 27 of the State Enactment empowers the respondent to revise the assessments. The assessee’s case before us is not questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent under Section 27 of the State Enactment, but as to the manner, in which, he has exercised his jurisdiction and the effect of the assessments, which had attained finality in the State of Andhra Pradesh wherein the assessee’s marketing companies have been assessed and the turnover have been exempted. There is no error in the said impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the said writ petitions and simultaneously granting libe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder that the assessment orders were challenged only on two grounds namely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Both the grounds raised by the appellant were negatived and the writ petitions were dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to file statutory appeals before the First Appellate Authority. We have been called upon to decide the correctness of the said impugned common order. 4. Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.B.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge is contradictory. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce he has no jurisdiction to make assessment in respect of the dealers, who got registered in other States. 7. Referring to this contention, it is submitted that this can hardly be a reason for increasing the appellant s turnover by adding 25% to the reported turnover and that the same is without jurisdiction. It is further pointed out that increase in turnover cannot be done in the circumstances as pointed out by the respondent and therefore, the said impugned common order is in total violation of the principles of natural justice and lacking in jurisdiction. 8. Per contra, Mr.Mohammed Shaffiq, learned Special Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Government Advocate, submits that the learned Single Judge, afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration the statutory forms and granted exemption and that the Assessing Officer of the appellant cannot sit in judgment over the said decision of the Authorities of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is further submitted that there are several decisions, which are in support of the assessee s case and produced some of them namely (i) East India Corporation Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1975) 36 STC 370]; (ii) DC (CT), Tiruchirapalli-20 Vs. Sarathi Agencies [reported in (1990) 78 STC 126]; (iii) Duvent Fans Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (1999) 113 STC 431]; (iv) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Hydels Engineers (P) Ltd. [reported in (2010) 35 VST 262]; and (v) National Small Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. The respondent acceded to the request made by the assessee and afforded an opportunity of personal hearing not once, but twice. It is submitted by the respondent that the case was discussed, after which, the Assessing Officer completed the assessments and passed the assessment orders dated 28.7.2017. 15. On a perusal of the objections given by the assessee dated 24.2.2017, we are of the clear view that the assessee was fully aware as to what is the case they have to meet. Therefore, we are of the view that it cannot be stated that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. 16. One more submission advanced before us was as regards reference to the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telungana in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been exempted. 19. In our considered view, these are all issues touching upon the merits of the case, which we shall not venture into, as the assessee did not want us or even the learned Single Judge to go into the merits of the case, but only contended that the assessments are in violation of the principles of natural justice and are without jurisdiction. We fully endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge with regard to the jurisdictional issue and more particularly the finding rendered in paragraph 25 of the said impugned common order. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the said impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the said writ petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
