9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is a Portugal company having its project office at Mumbai and is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act and is a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent herein. The petitioner is engaged in the business of drilling, testing and abandoning of off-shore wells. The petitioner was assessed by an order dated June 20, 2007 on a turnover of Rs. 56,56,33,774 towards transfer of right to use goods and Rs. 1,39,72,848 towards transfer of property in goods during the execution of works contract. The petitioner f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd remand to the assessing authority. The assessing authority shall quantify the amounts under each of the above categories and grant exemption/levy tax as directed supra." Though the second respondent passed order remanding the matter to the first respondent by his order dated February 26, 2008, the petitioner thereafter received no notice whatsoever from the first respondent and no orders as such were passed thereafter. As a matter of fact, under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the first respondent could pass orders consequent to the remand orders of the second respondent dated February 26, 2008 within three years from the date of receipt of the order of the second respondent. The petitioner received a notice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pired by February, 2011 itself and further the order dated February 25, 2012 of the second respondent which has not dealt with the turnover of Rs. 1,39,72,848 cannot be the basis for the purpose of limitation. However, the second respondent had rejected the said contention. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent in which the order impugned as having been time-barred has not been categorically denied. In the counter-affidavit, the contention of the 1st respondent is to the effect that the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority and ought to have availed of the alternative remedy of filing appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the second respondent who rejected the submission that the assessment as barred on the ground of limitation by order dated March 19, 2013. In this case also in the counter-affidavit, there was no denial with respect to the impugned order having become time-barred. For the reasons set out by us with respect to the assessment year 200405 under the APGST Act even with respect to orders passed under section 37 of A.P. VAT Act as the prescribed period of limitation is three years, the order dated March 19, 2013 passed under A.P. VAT Act also is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned order dated March 19, 2013 of the third respondent confirming the order dated March 15, 2012 so f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
