TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter back to 1st respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner, in which case the petitioner shall appear with his documents if any and thereupon the 1st respondent shall hear both parties and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously. The impugned revisional order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent with a direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition allowed. - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO AND HON BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA For the Petitioner Sri R.K. Acharyulu, For the Respondents : learned Government Pleader for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omer requirements and thus all those items are taxable items @ 5% as iron and steel. The items sold by the petitioner will fall under sub items V to VII of item 70 of Schedule IV and they cannot be classified as general goods falling under Schedule V. It is submitted the petitioner is not manufacturer of any of the aforesaid items with any material other than iron and steel. (b) While so, on the authorization issued by the 1st respondent, the DCTO, Kakinada Division conducted audit of the petitioner s concern for the tax period from January, 2016 to January, 2017 and submitted audit report dated 29.05.2017 to the 1st respondent. Thereafter the 1st respondent issued an assessment authorization dated 31.05.2017 to the 3rd respondent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some available copies of invoices and requested for an opportunity to file other material and to submit arguments. However, the 1st respondent passed the revision order on 12.01.2021 observing that the Yesubabu filed a letter stating that they have no further arguments. It was further observed as if the petitioner was manufacturing new products such as roofing sheets HR build-up sections, Purlins, HR purlins and MS Plates etc., which are not found place in entry 71 of Schedule IV and that they are liable to be taxed at 14.5% for the manufacture goods and sold as under Schedule V of the Act. The petitioner never claimed that his commodity falls under Entry 71 of Schedule IV but his case is that they will fall under Entry 70 of Schedule IV. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AP VAT Act, 2005 as observed in the impugned order. (b) The tax period only relates to January 2016 to January 2017. However, without there being any assessment for the period relating to February 2017 to June 2017, the 1st respondent has included the said period in the impugned revisional order and assessed to tax for the total period from January 2016 to June 2017 which is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner would submit that so far as the tax period February 2017 to June 2017 is concerned, the return filed by the petitioner for the said tax period was accepted u/s 20(2) of the AP VAT Act and no audit was taken up or any assessment order was passed for the said period by the CTO, Rajahmundry or by any other authority u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the AP VAT Appellate Tribunal and in view of availability of efficacious and alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 7. As can be seen, vide order dated 19.10.2022 in W.P.No.6801/2021, a Division Bench of this High Court set aside the earlier revision proceedings in R.F.No.18/2019-20 dated 12.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and remanded the matter back to 1st respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner, in which case the petitioner shall appear with his documents if any and thereupon the 1st respondent shall hear both parties and pass an appropriate order on merits in accordance with governing law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natural justice were violated. So far as the contention of the learned GP that in view of the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy of appeal, writ petition is not maintainable is concerned, we find no much force in it. It should be noted that in the instant case, the petitioner raised the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also lack of power of the revisional authority to assess for the tax period January 2017 to June 2017 in the absence of assessment by the primary authority. In such instances, going by the principle laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai MANU/SC/0664/1998 = AIR 1999 SC 22 this Court can exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
