TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 2. Petitioner is a registered Dealer under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. The 3rd respondent had passed a common assessment order dt.18.03.2014 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11 under the AP VAT Act, 2005. 4. The 4th respondent passed another assessment order under the CST Act, 1956, for the assessment year 2010-11 granting exemption on a turnover of Rs. 85,48,41,493/- relating to stock transfers covered by F-Forms. 5. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, in exercise of its suo motu power of revision, passed an ex-parte revision order vide JC.No.155 dt.12.03.2018 and revised the assessment order passed by the 4th respondent for the assessment year 2010-11 under the CST Act by withdrawing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile objections in reply to the pre-revision show cause notice as it had entered into a business transfer agreement with M/s Supermax Personal Care Private Limited, Mumbai, as per which the entire business of the petitioner company was transferred to the latter, but subsequently, disputes arose between the petitioner and the latter company because of which the latter company refused to hand over the books of accounts and other records to the petitioner to enable it to respond to the pre-revision show-cause notice. 10. Against the Revision order passed by the 2nd respondent vide JC.Order No.155 dt.09.03.2018, revising assessment order passed by the 3rd respondent under the AP VAT Act, 2005 petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Tel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thereafter, without giving any further date of hearing, the impugned order was passed on 31.01.2020, by wrongly stating that neither the dealer nor the advocate and Authorized Representative appeared nor requested for any further adjournment in the matter. (b) the impugned order was passed without properly verifying the records and the grounds of the petitioner and on wrong facts; that a bare perusal of the impugned order shows glaring irregularities on the face of the record; it is stated therein as if the petitioner had filed Appeal before the Joint Commissioner (ST), Hyderabad (Rural) Division, against the Assessment Order passed by the CTO, Balanagar Circle, and as if the said Joint Commissioner had granted "stay confirming the stay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 39,46,497/-. 16. Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents is unable to explain why in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent on 31.01.2020, the background facts relating to the filing of the stay petition were incorrectly mentioned and that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner are even referred to or considered by the 1st respondent. 17. According to the petitioner, even the observations in the impugned order that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing is factually incorrect. 18. In Xerox India Ltd. Vs. Government of A.P. and another, (2009) 23 VST 141 (AP), it was held that while deciding the application for stay, the authority was exercising quasi-ju....