Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (8) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at point of time, there was a lockdown declared by the Central Government and the State Government which was in force and naturally the petitioner would be disabled from attending the personal hearing before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, therefore, ought to have adjourned the matter - But, apparently, since the limitation was going to expire for making Revision by 30.03.2020, the impugned Assessment Order was passed by the 3rd respondent. The respondent are unable to explain why the impugned revisional order passed by the 3rd respondent contains no reasons and he frankly admitted that in view of the limitation getting expired for Revision by 30.03.2020, the 3rd respondent passed the revisional order without affording a personal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... classified as cotton connected fabrics/ man-made fabrics covered by G.O.Ms.No.2328, Revenue Department dt.13.12.1957. 5. Subsequently, by separate proceedings dt.07.09.2016, the 1st respondent revised his earlier order dt.31.03.2016 wherein he has considered certain declaration forms and allowed concessional rate of tax. 6. Aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent raising the same contention which had been put forth by the petitioner before the assessing authority. It contended that the inter-State sales of cotton fabrics are exempt from tax by virtue of the above G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers conferred on them under Section 8(5) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der Entry 86 in IV Schedule and was liable to tax at the rate of 5% and which ruling was binding on the authorities of the Department under Section 67 of the Telangana VAT Act. The 3rd respondent also proposed to levy tax in respect of difference of turnover on export sales taking into account the exemption of turnover granted under the VAT Act and the turnover considered under the Central Sales Tax Act. 10. According to the petitioner, there is no difference of turnover as alleged, and the turnover mentioned in the VAT order was a mistake, and the petitioner also did not notice it since the entire turnover was exempted under the VAT Act in reference to export sales. 11. According to the petitioner, the show-cause notices issued by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ID-19 pandemic and it could not receive any documents or statements or information, and to postpone hearing of the matter by (15) days till restoration of normalcy, but the 3rd respondent did not even advert to it, and straightaway passed the impugned order dt.30.03.2020 without giving any reasons. 15. The counsel for petitioner also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance Trading Company Kerala vs. State of Kerala (2011) 15 S.C.C. 762 and contended that in a similar situation in the State of Kerala in relation to cotton based tarpauline, the Supreme Court had held that when there are two taxing Entries the principle that the Specific Entry would have to be given priority as compared to the General Entry w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 20. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, is unable to explain why the impugned revisional order passed by the 3rd respondent contains no reasons and he frankly admitted that in view of the limitation getting expired for Revision by 30.03.2020, the 3rd respondent passed the revisional order without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner though the petitioner requested for the same on 29.03.2020 through email. 21. Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter requires re-examination by the 3rd respondent and that the petitioner has to be afforded a personal hearing by the 3rd respondent and the decisions relied upon by the petitioner refer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates