TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had been informed by the petitioner by e-mail dt.26.11.2019 to the 1st respondent enclosing copy of the order of the NCLT - the 1st respondent, who is the Assessing Officer of the MAPL, ought to have dropped further proceedings since the assessee was no longer in existence. Also, there is no date of the show-cause said to have been given to MAPL mentioned in the impugned order, and the petitioner denies having received it and also the reminder notice dt.06.03.2020 mentioned in the impugned order. Thus, there is also a violation of principles of natural justice. The turnover of MAPL, the amalgamated entity ought to be assessed in the name of the petitioner with whom it is merged. The assessment of the petitioner is admittedly alive b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Sales Tax Act and filed Nil returns from June, 2015 to March, 2016 with nil turnover, but in respect of VAT returns it reported a turnover of ₹ 23,51,62,401/-. According to poetitioner, there was no tax liability since the products sold were goods which were exempt under Entry 24 of the I Schedule to the Act. 7. A show-cause notice was allegedly issued by the 1st respondent proposing to levy tax on turnover of ₹ 31,21,764/- allegedly for inter-State sales effected by MAPL, but the petitioner contends that it did not receive it. 8. The petitioner contends that it received a reminder notice on 18.11.2019 addressed by MAPL by e-mail, and that by e-mail dt.16.11.2019 it informed the 1st respondent that the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued on 06.03.2020 by the 1st respondent was also not received by the petitioner. 12. Apart from these contentions, it is alleged that the assessment is barred by time for the period up to February, 2016 under Sub-Rule (5- A) of Rule 14-A of the Central Sales Tax (Telangana) Rules, 1957. 13. Sri J. Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, does not dispute the fact that after the assessee MAPL got amalgamated with the petitioner MEPL, the 1st respondent cannot pass an assessment order in respect of MAPL which ceased to exist. He could not explain why the 1st respondent passed the impugned assessment order in respect of MAPL in spite of being issued a reply on 26.11.2019 to the e-mail dt.18.11.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of petitioner with whom MAPL has been merged is permitted to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner in respect of turnover of the MAPL for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016. 20. The petitioner is granted six (06) weeks time from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice from the 2nd respondent to file objections to the said show-cause notice including the plea of bar of limitation under Sub-Rule (5-A) of Rule 14-A of the Central Sales Tax Telangana Rules, 1957 and also permitted to file supporting material; and a personal hearing shall also be afforded to petitioner by the 2nd respondent; and thereafter, a reasoned order in accordance with law shall be passed by the 1st respondent and communicated to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
