9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the following reliefs: (a) Declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the revision proceedings under Section 32 of the AP VAT Act, for the tax periods from January, 2016 to June, 2017 is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as binding decisions, arbitrary, high handed and in violation of principles of natural justice. (b) Declare the Revision Proceedings of the 1st respondent, in R.F. No. 10 (18)/2019-20, dated 17.02.2023, for the tax period from January, 2016 to June, 2017, as void and nonets under law and (c) And consequently, set aside the Revision Proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 17.02.2023 and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner has to pay tax of Rs. 34,061/- at 5% on the alleged under reported sales turnover of Rs. 6,81,226/- for the period from January, 2016 to March, 2016 and as the aforesaid tax is a small amount the petitioner did not challenge the same. The 3rd respondent found no discrepancy for the remaining period of assessment i.e., April, 2016 to January, 2017. (d) While so, the 1st respondent took up suo moto revision of the said assessment order and issued show cause notice dt: 30.12.2019 on the main ground that the turnover is excisable to tax at 14.5 % as applicable to general goods under Schedule V of the Act and that the assessing officer failed to levy the differential tax of Rs. 1,81,37,221/-. The petitioner received notice and filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. (f) Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6801/2021 and this Court set aside the said impugned revision order and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate order on merits. Pursuant to the said order, when the matter came up for hearing before 1st respondent on 09.11.2022 the petitioner sought for further time to file his documents and objections. Accordingly, the matter was posted to 16.11.2022 on that date the petitioner submitted his objections. Thereafter without granting further time for hearing the petitioner and without dealing with various objections raised by the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed impugned revision order dated 17.02.2023. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the interest of the revenue. However, without there being an assessment order or proceedings recorded by any authority relating to the period February 2017 to June 2017 much less prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the 1st respondent cannot assume jurisdiction to revise suo motu upon a nonexisting order. (c) Pursuant to the order dated 19.10.2022 in W.P. No. 6801/2021, the hearing of revision petition was taken up by the 1st respondent and the petitioner filed his written objections dated 16.11.2022. Thereafter, without granting further time for hearing the petitioner on his objections and without dealing with various objections raised by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed on 17.02.2023 and thereby pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 shows that as per the reference mentioned therein, written objections of the petitioner were filed on 16.11.2022 and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 17.02.2023. Though Ref.No.13 shows that personal hearing was held on 09.11.2022, it should be noted that the said personal hearing was a preliminary one as by that date the petitioner had not filed a detailed written objections, which he admittedly filed only on 16.11.2022. After filing of written objections, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner to argue his case with reference to the written objections filed by him. In the body of the order also, no specific mention was made about granting of personal hearing to the petitioner subsequent to his filing the written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged." 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned revisional order in R.F.No.10 (18)/2019-20, dated 17.02.2023 is set aside and matter is remitted back to the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
