9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of transporting goods. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment orders-cum-demand notices dated August 20, 2010, they filed these writ petitions on December 20, 2010. The impugned orders were passed by the first respondent herein under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ("the VATAct") demanding value added tax. At the outset we may notice the fact of the matter from W.P.No. 31979 of 2010 which is similar in other cases as well. The petitioner engaged vehicle bearing No. AP-16-X-6147 for transporting goods, i.e., basilite tunspray from Salem in Tamil Nadu to Jamshedpur in Jharkhand. As it was passing through the State of Andhra Pradesh, the vehicle obtained transit pass dated August 25, 2006 under section 47 of the VATAct at the Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. About two months, thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition. The first respondent filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. The averments therein, in brief, are as follows. The petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The vehicle, belonging to the petitioner, obtained transit pass at ICP, Naraharipet, Chittoor District, but the driver did not deliver the same at the exit check-post as required under section 47 of the VAT Act. Therefore, the officer in-charge of the entry check-post sent a report to the respondent in terms of rule 58(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ("the VATRules"). The answering respondent then issued show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded over the transit pass at the exit check-post, Itchapuram, and due to lapse of time the Department may not have traced the same. He nextly contends that no notice was issued to the petitioner, and the notice issued to the owner of the goods vehicle is not sufficient compliance with the law. Per contra, the Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes submits that the officer in-charge is required to send a report to the jurisdictional assessing officer 30 days after the vehicle passed through the exit checkpost, Itchapuram. When the transit pass was not delivered by the driver of the vehicle engaged by the petitioner, a report was sent. Immediately the first respondent issued a notice on September 16, 2010, to the owner of the goods veh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvising them to file the appeal in proper form duly rectifying the defects. In this background, it is rather difficult to accept the submission of the counsel that the petitioner's representation does not bar the writ petition. Though it was not presented in the proper form, it would certainly amount to the petitioner availing of the remedy under the VATAct. Further the second respondent himself treated the representation as an appeal, and returned the same requiring rectification of the mistakes. On this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice does not, in the present case, justify invocation of the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e comes to the conclusion that in the tax field issues of natural justice can be dealt with by the appeal system. The learned author gives the following reasons: 'One issue that has arisen is the extent to which questions of procedural error or breach of natural justice are suitable for resolution by an appellate mechanism. This area straddles the border between general public law and the specialized statutory scheme, since the issue of what procedure is appropriate depends on what is fair in the circumstances of a particular case. Breaches of the procedural rules will normally be dealt with on appeal, where the statutory scheme itself sets out the relevant procedural rules. Breach of the common law principles of natural justice may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner brought to our notice a photocopy of the transit pass in support of the contention that the vehicle left ICP, Naraharipuram on August 25, 2006, passed through the exit ICP, Itchapuram on August 28, 2006, the driver had delivered the transit pass and had obtained seal of the exit check-post. The copy of the transit pass placed before this court does not contain the signature of the ACTO, ICP, Itchapuram, though it contains the seal. It creates any amount of suspicion. The reasons are as follows. First, in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the petitioner has not even whispered that the driver had delivered the transit pass at ICP, Itchapuram. Secondly, in the reply affidavit except denying the counter averment that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
