TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where it was held that The remedy of appeal is creature of statute. If the appeal is presented by the assessee beyond the extended statutory limitation period of 60 days in terms of Section 31 of the 2005 Act and is, therefore, not entertained, it is incomprehensible as to how it would become a case of violation of fundamental right, much less statutory or legal right as such - HELD THAT:- Unlike in the said case, the petitioner filed the writ petition well within the period of limitation available for filing appeal. In such a case, having regard to the totality of the facts, this Court can entertain the writ petition. Violation of principles of natural justice - contention of the petitioner is that the said Deepak Agarwal, who was the erstwhile employee of the petitioner company, resigned from the company on 15.10.2018 itself and therefore, they did not receive any notice dated 12.06.2016 - HELD THAT:- In this context, the petitioner filed the proceedings dated 30.10.2018 issued by the Senior Manager, Human Resources, stating that Mr. Deepak Agarwal worked as Deputy Manager in Finance, Legal and Secretarial (Taxation) from 22.01.2016 to 15.10.2018. Therefore, as rightly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.02.2019 on the portal for registration of Kovur Nagar premises. The amended registration certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2019. d) While so, despite acknowledging the change in the address of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notices dated 21.01.2019, 20.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the former address of the petitioner calling for the books of accounts for verification for the relevant period. The 2nd respondent also proceeded to issue show cause notice dated 20.03.2020 and personal hearing notices dated 22.05.2020 and 30.06.2020 to the former address of the petitioner which were returned to the 2nd respondent by the postal authorities which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order itself. e) Despite knowing that the notices were served to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue the impugned assessment order confirming the demand of ₹ 3,43,20,724/- to the present address of the petitioner. Since the impugned order was passed without serving pre-assessment show cause notice and personal hearing notice to the correct address of the petitioner, the petitioner had no opportunity to submit its case and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prakash, B/501, Hindon Apartments 25, Vasundhar Enclave, New Delhi, but the copy sent to the place of business was left un-served, but the copy sent to the said Active Director of the firm was served, but no reply was received so far. Thereafter, personal hearing notices dated 22.05.2020 and 30.06.2020 were sent to the aforementioned address, but only the copy sent to the Active Director was served. A copy of the show cause notice was also affixed on the Board of Local Chamber of Commerce, Anantapuram, as a substitute mode of service. In spite of receipt of said notices by the Active Director, they did not choose to comply. All the notices mainly show cause notice and hearing notices were served on the petitioner through official mail of the Company. The petitioner purposefully seeks to derive undue advantage under the guise of violation of principles of natural justice. d) It is submitted that the petitioner informed the details of shifting from the premises of Dwaraka Villas, Kalyandurg Road to the present premises at Kovur Nagar to the concerned jurisdictional commercial Tax Officer i.e., Anantapur Circle-II but not to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner ought to have ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner. In fact, those notices were served on M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited which is a group company of the petitioner and in response thereof, the said company filed a letter dated 28.01.2019 seeking 30 days time and the 2nd respondent granted 15 days time and therefore, it is frivolous to contend that notices were duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner has not received any notices to its new address. c) Then, regarding the averment in para 5 of the counter that notices were sent to the e-mail ID of Deepakagerwal@astro.in, is contended in the rejoinder that he was the erstwhile employee of the petitioner, who resigned from the company on 15.10.2018 itself and therefore, sending notices to his e-mail ID would not serve any purpose. e) Then, with regard to the averment in the counter that the show cause notice in form VAT 305-A dated 20.03.2020 was sent for service to the place of business as well as to the house address of the Active Director, namely, Rajath Kumar Gupta S/o Ved Prakash, New Delhi, it is contended in the rejoinder that the said Rajath Kumar Gupta resigned on 20.03.2018 itself and hence, any notice served to the erstwhile Director wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed at projecting how the petitioner was not served with pre-audit, pre-assessment show cause notices and other notices and thereby how the petitioner was deprived the valuable opportunity of submitting their explanation and how the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing thereby depriving the principles of natural justice. 10. In normal circumstances, this Court desists from entertaining the writ petition on the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy. However, under certain special circumstances, violation of principles of natural justice being one, this Court would exercise its preliminary jurisdiction. It was so held by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Mark MANU/SC/0664/1998 thus: 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order, notices dated 21.01.2019, 20.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 were mentioned stating that books of accounts were called for from the office of the petitioner through those notices. In paras 5 and 10 of the counter, it is mentioned as if the petitioner received those notices and submitted a letter seeking additional time for furnishing the information and in fact an endorsement dated 30.01.2019 was made by the 2nd respondent granting 15 days time. Further, the petitioner furnished the counter affidavit mentioned documents on 15.02.2019 containing the address of the Corporate Office, Delhi, but not the local address. Thus, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had in fact received all the notices. In this regard, the contention of the petitioner is that the notices were sent to M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited a group company of the petitioner and on their request, time might have been granted. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner did not receive the aforementioned notices. The petitioner produced copies of the notices sent to M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited. A perusal of the same would show that a final notice under Section 64(1) of the AP VAT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
