M ADINARAYANA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proprietary concern and is in the business of excavation and sale of Lime Stone and a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. VAT Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") on the file of the 1st respondent. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.03.2011 and penalty order dated 26.09.2011 for the period 2006 -2007 to 2010 -2011.

(2.) AS per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had duly filed returns for the years 2006 -2007 to 2010 -2011 and disclosed the turnovers apart from paying the taxes as applicable. The petitioner had received notice dated 24.2.2010 in Form No.30 intimating that there would be an advisory/audit held on 10.03.2010 and directed him to produce the relevant records. Petitioner requested the respondents to grant 30 days time to produce the relevant records on account of absence of his Accountant. Thereafter, there was no communication from the respondents to the petitioner. While so, the 2nd respondent had called the petitioner to their office and directed him to remit an amount of Rs.9,50,003/ - alleged to be arrears of tax for the period 2006 -2011 in pursuance of the audit. Petitioner caused enquiries and filed objections through his letter dated 30.1.2013 intimating the 2nd respondent about the dispatch of notices to wrong addresses and further requested to furnish a copy of show cause notice. Petitioner did not receive any response to the said letter, but received a notice in Form No.IV on 31.1.2013 whereunder proceedings under Section 25 of the Act were initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner once again addressed another letter dated 31.1.2013 bringing to the notice of the 2nd respondent about non receipt of notice/assessment/penalty proceeding with a further request to conduct assessment proceedings afresh basing on the books of accounts maintained by him. There was no response and the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.3558 of 2013 and in response to the notice ordered by this Court, a counter -affidavit was filed enclosing show -cause notice, copy of the assessment order, copy of the penalty order in Form No.203 and also the proceedings demanding penal interest in Form No.205. On verification of the counter -affidavit especially the documents enclosed to the counter -affidavit, petitioner came to be aware of the assessment order dated 24.3.2011 and by seeking leave of the Court, the W.P.No.3558 of 2013 was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the Court afresh. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) SRI P.Balaji Verma, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents fairly concedes the mix up, but however tried to support the impugned order stating that the petitioner being a quarry owner, it is normal practice to serve the notices etc., at the quarry address. We are unable to accept the said explanation in view of the fact that under Rule 64 of the Act, the mode of service of orders and notices is prescribed. Rule 64 reads as under: -