TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was required to file the forms by June, 2013 but has failed to do so. In the meantime, Assessment Order was passed in 2015 which also was not appealed by the assessee. Only in the year 2020, the assessee had approached the Commissioner to accept the declaration in Form C and reopen the assessment. The Commissioner, however, turned down the prayer with the endorsement that he had no power to reopen the assessment after a lapse of four years - The condition precedent for condonation of such delay is sufficient cause . However, sufficient cause even if shown, may permit the authority to condone the delay but does not authorize the Assessing Authority or the Commissioner to reopen the proceeding. There cannot be any dispute over the proposition that a subordinate legislation cannot alter express statutory provisions. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, Rule 12 (7) can be read to empower the Assessing Authority to reopen the assessment after expiry of the time frame as envisaged under Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 21 of the AP VAT Act. In such a situation, the remedy available to an assessee for reopening of the assessment is to prefer an appeal before the appellate forum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he certificate relates: Provided that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the person concerned was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing such declaration or certificate within the aforesaid time, that authority may allow such declaration or certificate to be furnished within such further time as that authority may permit. 5. A perusal of the said Rule shows that the assessee is required to furnish the declaration in Form C or F or E-1 or E-II within three months after the end of the period for which declaration or the certificate relates, i.e., the Assessment Year. Proviso to the Rule, however, empowers the prescribed authority to permit such declarations/certificates beyond the aforesaid time provided sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the authority is shown. 6. In the present case, the assessee was required to file the forms by June, 2013 but has failed to do so. In the meantime, Assessment Order was passed in 2015 which also was not appealed by the assessee. Only in the year 2020, the assessee had approached the Commissioner to accept the declaration in Form C and reopen the assessment. The Commissioner, however, turned down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the AP VAT Act, which reads as follows: (8) Where an assessment made has been set aside by any Court or as the case may be the Appellate Tribunal, the period between the date of such assessment and the date on which it has been set aside shall be excluded in computing the period of four years or six years as the case may be, for making fresh assessment. Apart from the appellate authorities, Commissioner or any other prescribed authority under Section 32 of the AP VAT Act may reopen assessment proceedings in the event the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue but within four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer subject to enlargement of time as provided in sub-sections (7) and (8) thereof, which are parametria to Sub-sections (7) (8) of Section 21, which are discussed herein before. 9. An analysis of the aforesaid scheme, therefore, leads us to the following conclusions:- (a) Prescribed authority under Section 21 of the AP VAT Act may pass an order within four years from the period for which the assessment is being made or in case of wilful default within six years thereafter subject to enlargement of time as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Even in appropriate cases, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction may also direct the authorities to reopen the proceeding for the purpose of consideration of declarations in Form C as has been held in Godrej Agrovet Limited (1 supra). However, for the purpose of invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is incumbent upon the petitioner/assessee to satisfy that the petitioner, in spite of due diligence to obtain declarations in Form C was unable to submit the same within the stipulated period. 13. The expression sufficient cause in Rule 12(7) of the Rules must justify the entire period of delay, i.e., commencing three months beyond the assessment year and not from the date of assessment in view of the amendment to the law in 2005 as held by this Court in M /s. Shanti Alloys Private Limited v. the Commercial Tax Officer, Hindupur W.P.No.11565 of 2021 dated 06.07.2021 (APHC). 14. In the present case, there is hardly any explanation offered with regard to the circumstances which stood in the way of the petitioner/assessee to submit declarations in Form C within the stipulated time. A vague averment has been made that the business had clo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
