TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted:- 14-7-2020 - Sri Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao,The Honourable Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud For the Petitioner : Shaik Jeelani Basha For the Respondent : GP For Commercial Tax TG COMMON ORDER: PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the order dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent received by the petitioner through his Auditor on 17-12-2019 for the tax period 2014-15 to 2015-16 under the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short the 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 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way bills, without putting the same in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. 10. Aggrieved by the said order dt.26-07-2017 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 24-08-2017 in Form-400 through its Auditor. 11. The Auditor, according to the petitioner, did not respond to the notices issued by the 1st respondent and did not even inform the petitioner about such issuance of notices, and the 1st respondent passed an order on 27-09-2019 simply extracting the contentions of the petitioner 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent dt.27-09-2019 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the 1st respondent to give personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass a fresh order. 16. A perusal of the impugned order dt.27-09-2019 passed by the 1st respondent indicates that 1st respondent simply extracted the contentions of the petitioner and did not deal with any of the contentions raised by petitioner and simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not avail opportunities of personal hearing provided to it and did not produce any supporting documentary evidence contradicting the 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the assessment of VAT made in Form VAT-305 dt.26-07-2017 for the tax period April, 2012 to March, 2014. 22. In this W.P also, it is contended by the petitioner that in the impugned order passed by 1st respondent on 27-09-2019, the 1st the respondent simply extracted the grounds of appeal and rejected the appeal on the ground that petitioner did not avail the opportunities of personal hearing and did not produce supporting documentary evidence contradicting the findings recorded by the Audit Officer. 23. The other pleas raised in W.P.No.9788 of 2020 are also raised in this Writ Petition. 24. 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; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
