TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial filed by the petitioner in support of its case that it is immune from the exercise of revisional power and thereafter pass orders afresh. The petitioner is also given liberty to file any further material in support of its case. Both the writ petitions are allowed. - W.P. Nos. 32601, 32882 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAMACHANDRA RAO M.S., JJ. For the Appellant : M.V.J.K. Kumar For the Respondents : Venkatadri and P. Balaji Varma, Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO J.- Since common issues of law and fact arise in these writ petitions, they are being disposed of together. Heard Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatadri, Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes in both cases. With the consent of both sides, the writ petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner in both the cases is M/s. Sterling and Wilson Limited, which is an assessee on the rolls of the third respondent under both the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009, to the second respondent and the latter conducted a VAT audit and transactions of the business relating to a revised assessment order passed by him in form VAT 305 dated July 6, 2009 issued pursuant to remand directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in an order of appeal. The audit was initiated on July 21, 2009 and was completed on September 16, 2009. The petitioner was requested to produce the books of accounts and the petitioner produced all the records for the periods from 2008-09, 2009-10 (up to July 31, 2009), 2010-11 (up to December, 2010) and also filed a letter dated September 16, 2009 disclosing the details and amounts therein. The second respondent passed an order in form VAT 312 dated October 1, 2009 accepting the turnovers furnished by the petitioner with reference to the books of accounts, the returns filed therein and also the statements dated September 16, 2009 filed by the petitioner granting exemption for the above tax period with reference to inter-State sales, SEZ sales. He held that labour charges (installation and erection charges), service tax collections and AMC receipts are not liable to tax under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and confirmed the levy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on December 21, 2011. For the tax period August, 2009-March, 2010, he proposed to withdraw exemption towards labour charges of ₹ 8,88,89,221, service tax collected amounting to ₹ 91,16,419, C.S.T. sales of ₹ 3,60,252, transit sales turnover of ₹ 2,78,12,462 and high sea sales (sales in the course of import) of ₹ 56,95,060 on the ground that no evidence is filed in support of the exemption with regard to inter-State sales. With regard to transit sales, he proposed to withdraw the exemption on the ground that the said concept does not apply to tailor-made goods as the property in them and the attendant risk will remain with the assessee till the completion of the work. He also proposed to withdraw the exemption to SEZ sales, high sea sales and service tax collections on the ground that the petitioner had not maintained opening stock and closing stock details to arrive at the value of incorporation. He proposed to assess the gross receipts to ₹ 71,52,25,754 from which labour at 25 per cent applying rule 17(1)(g) read with section 4(7)(a) was calculated arriving at an amount of ₹ 17,36,92,816 and an amount of ₹ 52,10,78,447 was propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 3, 2012, the petitioners Manager (Accounts) personally appeared before the first respondent and explained the stand of the petitioner opposing the revision; that the said orders are passed without application of mind, verification of records, assessment filed and therefore unsustainable. Counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent reiterating that the petitioner did not appear in person in response to the notices dated January 5, 2012 and April 19, 2012, that the Manager (Accounts) of the petitioner did not appear on May 3, 2012 or any date prior to the passing of the impugned order and therefore, he had no option but to pass the orders ex parte. It is also contended that there was no response from the petitioner to a prior notice dated July 14, 2011 issued by the first respondent to produce bill-wise details for the sale and job work done by it along with annual reports which was served on the petitioner on July 21, 2011. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit specifically pointing out that it had submitted a reply dated July 27, 2011 to the first respondent to his showcause notice dated July 14, 2011 stating that all details sought were already submitted by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge his duty, in having ignored the material filed on August 17, 2011 by the petitioner along with the letter dated July 27, 2011. In view of the fact that the impugned orders dated May 31, 2012 relating to the tax periods April, 2009-July, 2009 and August, 2009-March, 2010 were passed by the first respondent without noticing and adverting to the material filed by the petitioner before him on August 17, 2011 vide the letter dated July 27, 2011 with enclosures, both the impugned orders for the above tax periods are set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent, who shall now afford a personal hearing to the petitioner/its authorized representative, consider all the material filed by the petitioner in support of its case that it is immune from the exercise of revisional power and thereafter pass orders afresh. The petitioner is also given liberty to file any further material in support of its case. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed to the above extent at the stage of admission with costs of ₹ 1,000 (rupees one thousand only) in each of the writ petitions, payable to the respective petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
