9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in Form VAT 305 dated 01.02.2016, and the consequential order of penalty under Rule 25(5) of the A.P. VAT Rules dated 08.03.2016. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner established a manufacturing unit at Gaganpahad, Rajendarnagar Mandal in 1991 and shifted the same to Katedan in Rajendarnagar Mandal in the year 2012. The third respondent had earlier sanctioned sales tax deferment under the Target Scheme, 2000 for Rs. 66,69,390/- for the period from 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2013 (14 years), repayable from the years 2013-14 to 2027-28 vide proceedings dated 04.08.2000, and a final eligibility certificate was issued by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 19.08.2000. The petitioner claims to have paid deferred ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order and the consequential penalty order was passed. Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that, despite repeated reminders, no response was forthcoming from the Industries Department; as the assessment period was likely to be barred by limitation, the assessing authority had no other alternative but to pass impugned assessment order; and as the petitioner had violated Rule 25(5) of the A.P. VAT Rules the consequential order of penalty was passed. As no information was forthcoming from the Industries Department, and the efforts of the learned Government Pleader for Industries in securing information from them was of no avail, we had perforce to direct the third respondent to appear b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with law. The entire exercise, culminating in an order being passed by the third respondent and being communicated to both the petitioner and the second respondent, shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from today. As the order of penalty was passed because of the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditions of the Final Eligibility Certificate, which issue is now under consideration of the third respondent, we consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of penalty. Suffice it to make it clear that this order shall not preclude the second respondent, if he chooses, from initiating penalty proceedings afresh after orders are passed by the 3rd respondent, and are communicated to him by the thir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
