Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 1111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 1111 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity of assessment order and appellate orders for the period 01.04.2009 to 30.10.2013 - challenge to the orders on the ground of limitation, and for violation of principles of natural justice - According petitioner, since the period of limitation under Section 21(4) of the A.P.Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) is four years from the end of the period for which assessment is to be made, the assessment order, for the period 01 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 is barred by limitation. To this limited extent, the assessment order is set aside. In all other respects, it is upheld. - Decided partly in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No.22410 of 2015 - Dated:- 20-11-2015 - SRI RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SRI M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : RAJASHEKAR REDDY FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHAIK JEELANI BASHA(SPL SC FOR CT-AP) ORDER: (per Hon ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The assessment order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

01.2014 was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which was served on them on 05.02.2014. By the show cause notice dated 31.01.2014, the petitioner was called upon to show cause, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the show cause notice, why they should not be subjected to tax. The one week period, stipulated in the show-cause notice, expired on 12.02.2014. The petitioner claims to have addressed a letter dated 13.02.2014 seeking further time. By the endorsement dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sri K.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order of assessment, and the order of the appellate authority, are liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation, and for violation of principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel, since the period of limitation under Section 21(4) of the A.P.Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ax period to means a calendar month or any other period as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that no rule has been made by the Government prescribing any other period as the tax period. Consequently, the tax period continues to remain a calendar month. Under Section 21(3) of the Act, where the authority prescribed is not satisfied with a return filed by the VAT dealer, or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall assess, to the best of his judgment, within four years of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed by a VAT dealer under Section 20, shall be in Form VAT 200 and it shall be filed within 20 days after the end of the tax period. For the tax period ie a calendar month, the return is required to be filed by the Dealer by the 20th of the next month. Consequently, in terms of Section 21(3) of the Act, since the assessment order was passed on 17.02.2014, the assessment for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 alone would be barred by limitation. For the tax period from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ording that the petitioner had not shown cause. The contention urged, on behalf of the petitioner, by Sri K.Rajashekar Reddy, that the representation dated 13.02.2014 was submitted on the same day, is not supported by any evidence on record. From the endorsement of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 18.02.2014, it appears that the representation of the petitioner was received in the office of the 1st respondent only on 18.02.2014. While the assessment order dated 17.02.2014 may have been served on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y, we see no reason to disbelieve what the 1st respondent has stated. As a result, the 1st respondent cannot be faulted in passing an assessment order, without awaiting a reply to the show cause notice from the petitioner beyond the period stipulated in the show cause notice for submitting objections. While the earlier Circular of the Commissioner required the dealers to be given two or three opportunities of 10 to 15 days each to file their objections, the Commissioner, by his Circular dated 31 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he show cause notice, was insufficient or not reasonable, they should have sought further time to file their objections before an assessment order was passed, and not thereafter. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice does not, therefore, merit acceptance. Sri K.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek to put forth his submissions on merits. The contentions now sought to be put forth before us were not put forth before the Assessing Authority. The Appellat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version