BANYAN ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 2005 (for short, "2005 Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "1956 Act") and assessed on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner is in the business of leasing of movable assets to ICFAI, both within the State as well as in the course of inter-State trade. The petitioner filed its returns for March, 2009 in form VAT 200. After a notice in form 305A dated April 3, 2008, the first respondent passed an order of assessment dated April 19, 2008, determining the liability of the petitioner both under the provisions of the 2005 Act and 1956 Act. Again by the notice dated May 8, 2009, the first respondent proposed to reassess the petitioner's returns stating that on re-examination of the records furnished by the assessee during the earlier occasion for audit up to December, 2007 and on examination of the records with reference to copies of agreements entered into with the lessee, misclassification of transactions under the provisions of the 2005 Act and purchase of material neither leased nor sold are detected; proposed to assess the under-declared tax and called upon the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner lodged its objections on May 18, 2009 and eventually the first respondent passed the impugned order dated July 7, 2009 determining a total liability of Rs. 75,31,536, including under-declaration of input tax of Rs. 42,68,497 and under-declaration of output tax of Rs. 32,63,039.

(2.) The order impugned of the first respondent clearly shows that there was no fresh material on the basis of which reassessment process was pursued and the order clearly states that on re-examination of the records furnished by the assessee during the earlier occasion of audit up to December, 2007 and with reference to copies of agreements entered into with the lessee, the under-declaration of output tax and misclassification of transactions under the provisions of 2005 Act, during the year 2006-07, were discerned.

(3.) The petitioner assails the order of reassessment purportedly passed under the provisions of section 21(6) of the 2005 Act on several grounds. For the purpose of adjudicating whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed, i.e., of invalidation of the order of reassessment, suffice it to consider one contention, viz., that the order is vitiated as it is based on "no other or fresh material" apart from the material already on record before the first respondent, on the basis of which the initial assessment order dated April 19, 2008, was passed.