9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 01.04.2009. Since the total turnover for any 12 consecutive months never crossed Rs. 5.00 lakhs / Rs. 40.00 lakhs, the petitioner was not registered as a TOT/VAT dealer as per Section 17 of the AP VAT Act, 2005. The petitioner did not receive any Assessment Order from Commercial Tax Department. At present the quarry of the petitioner is not functioning and petitioner stopped business. (b) While so, the 1st respondent issued pre-assessment show cause notices dated 08.04.2015 and 30.06.2015, wherein he proposed to add a turnover of Rs. 1,34,60,233/- stating that earlier Vigilance and Enforcement (V&E) Officials inspected the quarry on 21.05.2013 and measured the pit and arrived at an evaded quantity of 12292.45 CBM. Further, the 1st respondent adopted @ Rs. 1095/- per CBM for all the years without any basis. The petitioner submitted letter dated 17.04.2015 and sought 15 days time in addition to the time allowed in the notice and thereafter the petitioner sent letter dated 08.07.2015 and requested the 1st respondent to communicate the copy of the inspection report of V & E, Anantapuram so as to file objections as against the turnover mentioned in the notices. However, there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned Assessment Order. (b) Nextly, it is contended that the assessing authority on receipt of the report from V&E officials, Anantapuram vide RC No. 206/REV-DCTO/C/2014, dated 11.09.2014, issued show cause notices vide RC No. 7/2015, dated 08.04.2015 and 30.06.2015 as per the quantitative particulars and rate of the same supplied by V&E officials and proposed to raise a demand of Rs. 6,79,024/- on the sales of road metal by allowing 7 days time to file the written objections by the petitioner, if any, against the proposed assessment. The show cause notices were served on the petitioner through post by RPAD on 16.04.2015 and 06.07.2015 respectively. In reply, the petitioner filed a letter dated 08.07.2015 requesting the Assessing Authority to supply the inspection material received from the V&E officials. The Assessing Authority issued personal hearing notice dated 28.11.2018 to appear in the office with all records and evidences against the show cause notices issued. The petitioner did not turn up and hence, the Assessing Authority passed final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh (2015) 61 APSTJ 255. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader argued that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal. Nextly, he argued that the petitioner was an unregistered dealer and therefore in ascertaining the particulars of the petitioner there occurred some delay and therefore, the demand is not barred by limitation. Added to above, the petitioner had tried to willfully evade the tax by not disclosing the excavated quantity of 12,292.45 CBM of road metal. Above all, the petitioner has not challenged the assessment immediately. He would argue that even assuming that the assessment order is defective and barred by limitation for some period, still the same was not challenged by the petitioner within a reasonable time and therefore, the petitioner now cannot question the validity of the assessment order. He placed reliance on State of Rajasthan and others v. D.R. Laxmi and others (1996) 6 SCC 445. Nextly, refuting the contention of the petitioner about the non-serving of inspection reports, it is contended that the same was served under Rule 64 by registered post but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where any assessment as a result of such scrutiny becomes necessary, such assessment shall be made within a period of four years from the end of the period for which the assessment is to be made. Going by this provision, so far as the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-2013 (upto November, 2012) are concerned, the assessment ought to have been completed within four years from the end of each year's assessment period. However, in the instant case, the assessment was completed and order was passed only on 11.01.2019. Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned Assessment Order dated 11.01.2019 is barred by limitation so far as the aforesaid period is concerned. It should be noted that under Section 21(5) of the Act, where any willful evasion of tax has been committed by a dealer, an assessment shall be made to the best of his judgment by the authority prescribed, within a period of six years of date of filing of return or the first return relating to such offence. Even if the aid of this provision is taken into consideration, the assessment for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 (upto November, 2012) is barred by limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither furnished to the petitioner nor was taken into consideration while passing the impugned Assessment Order. The petitioner thus claims violation of principles of natural justice. 12. We find force in the above contention of the petitioner. Admittedly, the basis for issuing show cause notice and passing of impugned Assessment Order was the inspection dated 21.05.2013 of V&E Department and its report to the 1st respondent. In such an event, the 1st respondent owes a responsibility to furnish the copy of the said report at least after receiving the request letter dated 08.07.2015 of the petitioner, a copy of which is filed along with material papers. Thus the petitioner was deprived of a valuable opportunity to submit her objections against the said report and impugned Assessment Order. In Nallana Sambasiva Rao's Case (2 supra), a Division Bench of the common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh held thus: "5. When the order of assessment is solely based on the material and reports submitted by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Vijayawada, it is obligatory on the part of authorities to supply such material along with the notice of assessment and invite obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. xxxx" 15. In this case, the principles of natural justice were violated and further a major part of assessed period is barred by limitation and thereby, the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to pass assessment order to that extent. In such an event, this Court can entertain writ petition. 16. In the result, this Writ Petition is partly allowed and ordered as follows: (a) The Assessment Order dated 11.01.2019 so far as it relates to the period 2008-09 to 2012-13 (upto November, 2012) is barred by limitation and hence set aside to that extent, however, the said order relating to the tax period 2013-14 is held to be within the period of limitation. (b) However, the Assessment Order dated 11.01.2019 for the tax period 2013-14 is set aside for violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the 1st respondent is directed to furnish copies of the inspection reports of V & E Department, Anantapuram to the petitioner and receive the objections / reply and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, pass a fresh Assessment Order on merits f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
