9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act'). 2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Act. 3. It purchases iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap from the local dealers within the State of Telangana and effects sales of iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap to local dealers in Telangana and also out of the State of Telangana against 'C' forms. 4. For the tax period April, 2014 and March, 2016, the 2nd respondent, as authorized the Dy.Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, visited the business premises of petitioner on 04-08-2015, issued a notice in VAT-304 directing the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised in the grounds of appeal, without discussing the same and rejected the appeal. 12. According to the petitioner, though the 1st respondent stated in the said order that final notice dt.03-04-2019 was sent to the petitioner, petitioner did not receive it. 13. Thereafter, it appears that a demand notice dt.30-12-2019 was issued by 3rd respondent demanding Rs. 1,17,04,232/- ignoring petitioner's claim that it is entitled to refund of Rs. 57,90,413/- for 2013-14, Rs. 26.00 lakhs for 2014-15 and Rs. 30.00 lakhs for 2015- 16. Thereafter the 3rd respondent also issued a garnishee notice dt.30-12-2019 to the petitioner's Banker (4th respondent) demanding Rs. 1,17,04,232/- and the 4th respondent issued bankers cheque for the amount of Rs. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... findings recorded by the Audit Officer in his order dt.26-07-2017. 17. We are of the opinion that whether or not the petitioner availed the opportunity of personal hearing, it is the duty of the 1st respondent, as appellate authority, to deal with the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by petitioner and the 1st respondent could not have rejected the appeal only on the ground that personal hearing opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. 18. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 states that 1st respondent will give an opportunity to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order in the appeal filed by the petitioner since petitioner contends about violat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, for the reasons, which have already been furnished by us in W.P.No.9788 of 2020 as above, this Writ Petition is also allowed; the order ADC No.1478 dt.24-07-2019 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside; the appeal No.R/57/2017-18-VAT filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment of VAT made by 2nd respondent on 26-07-2017 for the tax period April, 2012 to March, 2014 is restored to the file of the 1st respondent; the petitioner is granted four (04) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file whatever supporting material petitioner wishes to, before the 1st respondent in the said appeal; and the 1st respondent shall then pass a reasoned order within eight (08) weeks thereafter and communicate it to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
