9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, apart from that, the Government with an avowed object constituted V E Department under G.O.Ms.No.269 and assigned certain functions, one of which is to safeguard the revenue due to the Government. In that context, the officers of the said department can share the relevant information with the Commercial Tax Department and assist them without any prior requisition. The powers conferred under G.O.Ms.Nos.269 and 504 are independent and exclusive and they are in aid to the Tax department but not in derogation to Section 72(2) and there is no conflict between the powers and functions of the V E Department and the power of Chief Commissioner to make requisition to the Government under Section 72(2) of the APGST Act. Whether the impugned notices are unsustainable in law for want of authorization from the Proper Officer under Section 67 of the APGST Act and hence liable to be set aside? - HELD THAT:- The 3rd respondent who issued the impugned notices is the Deputy Commissioner (ST) but not the Chief Commissioner. Therefore, in order to issue the impugned notices, the 3rd respondent requires the authorization of the Chief Commissioner assigning the task of issuing notices under Rule 99 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of sales turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner for both the taxable periods and accordingly, issued notices of intimation dated 28.02.2023 regarding the discrepancies in Form GST ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the AGPST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act and called for the payment of the due tax / explanation within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. Hence, the instant two writ petitions. 3. Heard Sri M.V.K.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax-II representing the respondents 1 3, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing 2nd respondent. 4. Vehemently remonstrating the impugned notices, learned Senior Counsel would firstly argue that there is no provision authorizing the Director of Vigilance Enforcement in the State to conduct inspection of the business premises of a registered dealer under GST law. Therefore, the impugned notices issued by 3rd respondent on the strength of the alert note forwarded by 2nd respondent is a gross infraction of the GST law and on that ground alone the impugned notices are liable to be set aside as they are b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwarded to him by the 2nd respondent, except the pre-prepared stock inventory, the 3rd respondent has not forwarded the inspection report of the 2nd respondent and other incriminating material and thereby the petitioner was deprived of valuable opportunity to submit an effective explanation / objections to the impugned notices. He thus prayed to allow the writ petitions. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes-II while supporting the impugned notices and opposing the writ petitions argued that in the instant case the impugned notices in Form GST ASMT- 10 were issued by following the procedure under Rule 99(1) r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act but not under Section 67(1) or (2) of the APGST Act. In expatiation, referring to Section 67 he would submit that whenever a Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner has reason to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement or indulged in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act or rules to evade tax, then he may authorize in writing any officer of the State tax to inspect the premises of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and the petitioner cannot clamour that the 3rd respondent cannot act upon the alert note forwarded by 2nd respondent on one hand and issue the impugned notices without authorization on the other. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 6. While so, learned Government Pleader for Home representing the 2nd respondent while producing the copy of the G.O.Ms.No.504 dated 25.11.1997 issued by the General Administration (V E A) Department, would submit that in the said G.O., the role of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department has been delineated, as per which one of the tasks of the Vigilance Enforcement Department is to prevent the leakage of revenues due to the Government and in that context, the 2nd respondent and his officials while inspecting the premises of the petitioner found stock variation and also sale of material without issuing invoices / bills and therefore, after obtaining the statement from the petitioner, forwarded alert note to the 3rd respondent for taking necessary action to prevent evasion of the tax. Learned Government Pleader would thus submit that the 2nd respondent has authority to inspect the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Director. Further, the officers working in V E Department have jurisdiction and powers throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of matters to which the Executive Authority of the State extends. The jurisdiction of the V E Department extends to all departments of the Government, State Public Sector undertakings, State Government companies, all local bodies like Municipalities and Zilla Parishads. Finally it is stated in the aforesaid G.O. that all the administrative departments of the Government shall extend necessary cooperation to the V E Department. 10. Thus, the above G.O. pellucidly tells that the enforcement functions of the V E Department inter alia are to safeguard revenues due to the Government and in that context it is permeable in all the departments including the Tax department. We agree with the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home that in the matter of protection of revenue due to the Government in the form of taxes, the officials of the V E Department, if need be, can make inspection in the premises of taxable traders. During course of such inspection if the officials of the V E Department found the attempts of such traders in evasion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. This point is answered accordingly. 12. Point No.2: Regarding this point, as rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes-II, the 3rd respondent issued impugned notices in terms of Rule 99(1) of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act but not under Section 67 of the Act. As per Section 61, during the scrutiny of the returns and related particulars submitted by an assessee, if the proper officer finds any discrepancies, he may seek explanation of the assessee and if such explanation is found acceptable, no further action shall be taken or otherwise if the assessee fails to furnish satisfactory explanation or fails to take the corrective measures in his return in which the discrepancy is accepted, the Proper Officer may initiate appropriate action. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent in the light of alert note forwarded by 2nd respondent, only issued the impugned notices to the petitioner either to pay the demanded tax if he accepts the discrepancies or to submit its objections / explanations within the stipulated time. At this stage, no action was contemplated to inspect the premises of the petitioner or to search and seize any goods or book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
