9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptions and assumptions, not sustainable even on merits and is illegal and consequently set aside the same ". 2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the petitioner, a registered person under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the GST Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, is engaged in the business of trading in Iron Tubes and Iron Sheets. The petitioner purchases the said goods from both within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and also sells the same both within and outside the State of A.P. He is regularly filing returns and paying taxes thereon within the time. The 1st respondent, who is the jurisdictional assessing authority of the petitioner, on an authorization from the Joint Commissioner (ST), Kurnool, conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner on 06.08.2021, seized 36 slips and on the same day, issued notice asking the petitioner to produce books of accounts for the tax period from January, 2018 to July, 2021. On further authorization from the Joint Commissioner (ST), Kurnool Division, 1st respondent issued 'Notice of Intimation of Tax Ascertained' in Form GST DRC-01A, dated 30.11.2021, followed by the show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r receiving the impugned order, the petitioner consulted a Tax Consultant and on his advice submitted an application, dated 12.08.2022, to the 1st respondent requesting to furnish certified copies of the materials/documents seized at the time of inspection, and relied upon by the 1st respondent to issue the show-cause notice; statement, if any recorded by the inspecting authority at the time of inspection; panchanama, if any drafted at the time of inspection and copy of the authorization in Form GST INS-1, issued by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Kurnool, authorizing him to inspect the business premises of the petitioner. The 1st respondent accordingly furnished certified copies of the documents sought for after passing of the impugned order. Furnishing the material relied on for passing the impugned order, after the said order has been passed will not rectify the defect of violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner did not have the opportunity to verify the same before filing its objections in reply to the show-cause notice. On verification of the material, the alleged unaccounted slips allegedly seized from the business premises of the petitioner, it is found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice. In addition, it was the bounden duty of the 1st respondent to furnish every material which was relied upon before making an order of adjudication, but contrary to the well established principles of law, the 1st respondent issued the show-cause notice without enclosing the material and though the petitioner filed detailed objections, these were not considered properly as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the sole ground that it is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 180 and other decisions of this Court in Sri Uma Maheswara Rice and Flour Mill v. Commercial Tax Officer (2012) 54 APSTJ 51 (AP), ITC Limited, Sarapaka, Khammam District v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Warangal (2009) 49 APSTJ 234 (AP), Sri Nallana Sambasiva Rao v. State of A.P. (2015) 61 APSTJ 255 (AP) and M/s. T. Ramanjaneyulu General Stores v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I and another W.P. No.31274/2015, dated 26.10.2015. 8. On the other hand, Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 15.02.2022 a show- cause notice was issued and thereafter personal hearing notices were issued on 21.03.2022, 05.05.2022 and 11.05.2022. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner submitted reply on 01.03.2022 which was received in the office of the 1st respondent on 16.04.2022. As is evident from the copy of the objections, dated 01.03.2022, submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner raised disputed questions of facts. 10. There is no whisper or there is no request in the reply to the show-cause, dated 01.03.2022, that the petitioner is not aware of the contents of the slips that were seized from the business premises of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner produced other books of accounts on notice from the assessing authority as such he has knowledge about the contents of the slips. A perusal of the objections, dated 01.03.2022, would show that the petitioner has knowledge of the contents of the slips also. He never made any request to furnish copies of the material alleged to have been seized. Apart from that, it is not the case of the petitioner that no raid was conducted by the 1st respondent, on authorization from the Joint Commissioner (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he financial misstatements from the relative period and the show-cause notice was issued without enclosing the investigation report. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Board shall be duty bound to provide copies of such parts of the report which contain the specific allegations levelled against the appellant in the notice to show cause. However, this does not entitle the appellant to receive sensitive information regarding third parties and unrelated transactions that may form part of the investigation report. 13. Coming to the present case on hand, it is not a case where the material that was alien to the petitioner was sought to be used against the petitioner herein. As stated earlier, the material that was seized from the business premises of the petitioner was made the basis to issue the show-cause notice. Even according to the reply submitted by him, he never raised his little finger before the 1st respondent refuting that he has no knowledge whatsoever about the contents of the 36 slips etc., Hence, in our considered view, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T. Takano (1st supra), does not help the petitioner. 14. In Sri Uma Maheswara R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the notice of assessment and invite objections from the dealers before passing the assessment order. The factual aspects were that the petitioner therein was successful bidder for sand quarry in the sand reach of Eturu village of Chandarlapadu Mandal in Krishna District. He was a dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nandigama Circle. Basing on the report furnished by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada, impugned order was passed in Form-VAT 305 regarding the tax payable by the petitioner at Rs.1,17,45,950/- alleging that the petitioner did not report the actual turnover. It is not a case where the material was seized from the petitioner. So the said decision would be of no help to the petitioner to contend that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. 19. Coming to another decision of this Court in M/s. T. Ramanjaneyulu General Stores (5th supra) in Writ Petition No.31274 of 2005, the facts show that the impugned assessment-cum-penalty proceedings were issued by the 1st respondent therein on the grounds which were not mentioned in the show-cause notice and also without furnishing the copies of the material relied upon for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
