TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 850 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ], a Division Bench of this Court held that as per Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana State Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, show-cause notice should be served on the nominated person or left at the registered office of the person or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person, and it cannot be sent by e-mail - This legal position is not disputed by the learned Special Counsel. It has to be held that there was neither service of a show-cause notice on the petitioner nor service of the Assessment Order on the petitioner for the period 2010-11 and therefore, there was a violation of principles of natural justice which caused pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner - assessment order also not sustainable. Assessment year 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- A reading of the said Assessment Order indicates that a show- cause notice dt.04.10.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which was served by dispatch and that the petitioner filed a letter dt.23.10.2017 and declared certain turnovers. No proof of service of the pre-assessment show cause notice is filed by the 1st respondent and even the alleged letter dt.23.10.2017 has not been produced - No evidence produced by respondents 1 to 3 of proof of service of the said Assessment Order also on the petitioner - Without service of show cause notice and Assessment Order on the petitioner, the respondents cannot seek to enforce any demand raised thereunder a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st respondent directing the said banker to attach a sum of ₹ 7,86,792/- lying in the petitioner's bank account, towards dues of the petitioner under the CST Act, 1956 for the tax periods 2010-11 to 2014-15. 4. The petitioner then approached the 1st respondent and discovered that these dues pertained to the Assessment Orders allegedly passed for the said tax periods under the provisions of the CST Act. 5. The petitioner contends that the Assessment Orders were passed for the said periods on different dates, but none of those orders were served on the petitioner. 6. The petitioner contends that though the petitioner requested the 1st respondent for copies of the same, the Assessing Officer refused to give the same to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the postal cover bears the date stamp 09.07.2014, but it is returned with an endorsement addressee left . 12. It is not in dispute that notices as well as orders passed are required to be served on the assessee in accordance with Rule 64(1)(b) of the TVAT Rules, which does not contemplate service of either notices or orders through the mode of e-mail. 13. In Soa Software Engineering India Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2013) 57 A.P.S.T.J. 103, a Division Bench of this Court held that as per Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana State Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, show-cause notice should be served on the nominated person or left at the registered office of the person or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of pre- assessment show cause notice on the petitioner and violation of principles of natural justice which caused prejudice to the petitioner. 17. As regards the period 2012-13, the Assessment Order No.9035/2012-13/CST dt.09.03.2016 refers to a show-cause notice dt.07.09.2015 and recites that it was sent by post. But there is no evidence of service of the same on the petitioner. The said Assessment Order was dispatched to the petitioner on 26.05.2016 but is also returned with endorsement addressee left . Therefore, even for 2012-13 period there is no evidence of service of pre-assessment show-cause notice or even the Assessment Order and it has to be held that there was a violation of principles of natural justice which caused pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he alleged letter dt.23.10.2017 has not been produced. No evidence produced by respondents 1 to 3 of proof of service of the said Assessment Order also on the petitioner. Without service of show cause notice and Assessment Order on the petitioner, the respondents cannot seek to enforce any demand raised thereunder as there has been a violation of principles of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. 20. In view of the above reasoning, the demand of tax raised in the impugned notice dt.17.02.2020 under Section 29 of the Telangana State VAT Act, 2005 served on the petitioner's banker, the 4th respondent, for the periods 2010-11 to 2014-15 cannot be sustained. 21. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed; t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
