9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021 respectively. 2. The petitioner is engaged in supply of iron and steel purchased from the resident registered taxable persons. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the APGST Act and an assessee on the file of 3rd respondent herein. While so, the petitioner submitted its returns for the taxable period April 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021. The 3rd respondent, on having received alert note vide R.C.No.158/C/2020 dated 21.12.2022 from the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer / 2nd respondent, scrutinized the aforesaid returns and found the suppression of sales turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner for both the taxable periods and accordingly, issued notices of intimation dated 28.02.2023 regarding the discrepancies in Form GST ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the AGPST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act and called for the payment of the due tax / explanation within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. Hence, the instant two writ petitions. 3. Heard Sri M.V.K.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent has not stated anything about the authorization issued to him by the Joint Commissioner to either conduct the inspection or to issue the impugned notices. Since the notices suffer the vice of lack of authorization under Section 67, they are illegal and unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In this regard he placed reliance on Prakashsinh Hathisinh Udavat v. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/2542/2019. (b) Nextly, learned Senior counsel would argue that in spite of the representation dated 02.03.2023 requesting 3rd respondent to communicate copy of the report along with the alleged incriminating material stated to be forwarded to him by the 2nd respondent, except the pre-prepared stock inventory, the 3rd respondent has not forwarded the inspection report of the 2nd respondent and other incriminating material and thereby the petitioner was deprived of valuable opportunity to submit an effective explanation / objections to the impugned notices. He thus prayed to allow the writ petitions. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes-II while supporting the impugned notices and opposing the writ petitions argued that in the instant case the impugned notices in Form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the petitioner has filed its returns for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021. However, on receiving the alert note from the statutory authority i.e., the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, Kurnool, pointing out the suppression of sales turnovers, the 3rd respondent in order to seek clarification from the petitioner issued the two impugned notices asking him to either pay the demanded tax if he does not wish to challenge the notices or submit its objections within the stipulated time. Learned Government Pleader would argue in vehemence that the 3rd respondent is well within his powers and jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and the petitioner cannot clamour that the 3rd respondent cannot act upon the alert note forwarded by 2nd respondent on one hand and issue the impugned notices without authorization on the other. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 6. While so, learned Government Pleader for Home representing the 2nd respondent while producing the copy of the G.O.Ms.No.504 dated 25.11.1997 issued by the General Administration (V&E-A) Department, would submit that in the said G.O., the role of the Vigilance and Enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fective measures through its own machinery and achieve several objectives, one of which is prevention of leakage of revenues due to the Government. In the said G.O., it is further stated that the V&E Department is expected to carry out vigilance functions where Government spending is involved and enforcement functions in respect of the revenues due to the Government. The Head Office of V&E was reconstituted into following four wings vide office order No.283, G.A (V&E) Department dated 03.08.1995: (a) Revenue Wing (b) Engineering wing (c) Development works Wing (d) Natural Resources wing Each of these wings is headed by the Joint / Additional Director. Further, the officers working in V&E Department have jurisdiction and powers throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of matters to which the Executive Authority of the State extends. The jurisdiction of the V&E Department extends to all departments of the Government, State Public Sector undertakings, State Government companies, all local bodies like Municipalities and Zilla Parishads. Finally it is stated in the aforesaid G.O. that all the administrative departments of the Government shall extend necessary coope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstituted V&E Department under G.O.Ms.No.269 and assigned certain functions, one of which is to safeguard the revenue due to the Government. In that context, the officers of the said department can share the relevant information with the Commercial Tax Department and assist them without any prior requisition. The powers conferred under G.O.Ms.Nos.269 and 504 are independent and exclusive and they are in aid to the Tax department but not in derogation to Section 72(2) and in our view, there is no conflict between the powers and functions of the V&E Department and the power of Chief Commissioner to make requisition to the Government under Section 72(2) of the APGST Act. This point is answered accordingly. 12. Point No.2: Regarding this point, as rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes-II, the 3rd respondent issued impugned notices in terms of Rule 99(1) of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act but not under Section 67 of the Act. As per Section 61, during the scrutiny of the returns and related particulars submitted by an assessee, if the proper officer finds any discrepancies, he may seek explanation of the assessee and if such explanation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue the impugned notices, the 3rd respondent requires the authorization of the Chief Commissioner assigning the task of issuing notices under Rule 99 r/w Section 61 of the Act. In the impugned notices, neither any reference is made about such authorization nor it was filed separately in the Court. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the two impugned notices suffer the vice of lack of authorization by the Proper Officer i.e., Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside. However, that will not preclude the Chief Commissioner or the officer authorized by him to issue fresh notices under Rule 99 of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act. 14. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned notices dated 28.02.2023 are set aside with an observation that the respondent authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notices under Rule 99 of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act either through the Chief Commissioner or any other Officer of the State Tax authorized by the Chief Commissioner in that regard. Such notices can be issued to the petitioner calling for objections by furnishing copies of the relevant documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
