9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein relating to the tax period 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (up to September, 2013); whereas Writ Petition No. 10960 of 2014 is filed impugning penalty order dated 21-12-2013 passed in AAO:59591 by the 1st respondent relating to the tax period 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 (up to September, 2013). 2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramgopalpet Circle, the 2nd respondents under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short the AP VAT Act). The petitioner states that it purchases raw material from local VAT registered dealers by paying tax to them and manufactures and sells finished produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then only output tax can be demanded. The 1st respondent also passed the penalty order imposing penalty equal to tax under Section 53(3) of the AP VAT Act. As stated supra, both the assessment order and the penalty order are under challenge in these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner as required under Rule 64(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and in fact the speed post sent by the 1st respondent was received by a worker but not the petitioner and the worker handed over the cover to the petitioner only recently. Therefore, the petitioner could not furnish the books of accounts, purchase bills etc., as required by the 1st respondent. In s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and, therefore, the 1st respondent was justified in passing the impugned assessment order as well as the penalty order. 8. Perused the record. 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that notice as required under Rule 64(b) of the Rules is not served. Under Rule 64(b) of the AP VAT Rules, notice is considered to have been served if (i) it is personally served on the nominated person; (ii) if it is left at the registered office of the person or the person's address for service of notices under the AP VAT Act; (iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State or (iv) where it is returned un-served, if it is put on board in the office of the local chamber of commerce or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not personally served on any person other than the petitioner. 13. The other contention of the petitioner is that the impugned assessment order insofar as it relates to the period from April 2009 to October, 2009 is barred by limitation under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT Act since the assessing authority is empowered to make the assessment within a period of four years from the end of the period from which the assessment is made. In Gunisetty China Gunna Raju Traders' case (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court observed as under: "As per sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the competent authority is empowered to make the assessment within a period of four years from the end o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
