ARROW ADVERTISING Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these two writ petitions claims to be an advertising agency carrying on the business of providing advertising services through press, electronic media and hoardings to various commercial establishments and enterprises. By order dated 30.04.2012 made in Form -VAT 305, the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Jubilee Hills Circle, Hyderabad, assessed the petitioner under the provisions of A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the tax period 1.6.2009 to 31.3.2010. Pursuant thereto, the penalty order dated 30.05.2012 was also made by the 2nd respondent in Form -VAT 203. Challenging the said two orders, these two writ petitions are filed.

(2.) IT is pleaded in the writ petitions that the petitioner is a registered "service provider" under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that he is also a registered dealer under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005. However, according to the petitioner, he is basically a service provider and only a small part of his business relating to printing job work attracts liability under the A.P. VAT Act. It is also claimed that the rest of the receipts out of his business such as advertisements through press or electronic media, web designing, etc., relate to the services rendered by him which is not liable to tax by the State Government under the A.P. VAT Act. While so, the 1st respondent having audited the books of accounts of the petitioner issued a show -cause notice proposing assessment under the A.P. VAT Act. Though the petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.03.2012 objecting to the proposal made to levy tax on various services rendered by him which according to him are not exigible to tax by the State Government, the same was not accepted and thus the impugned assessment order dated 30.04.2012 came to be passed followed by penalty order dated 30.05.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeals before the respondent No. 3 on 27.9.2012. The said appeals were rejected as time barred. Challenging the said orders of rejection, the petitioner filed further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad on 30.03.2013 and the same were also dismissed by orders dated 28.10.2013.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.