ATTAL PLASTICS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the assessment order passed by 1st respondent dated 23 -01 -2014 for the assessment year 2010 -2011 under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) on the ground that the 1st respondent did not afford an opportunity of personal hearing under the CST Act and thereby the order is willful and contrary to law. Admittedly the writ petitioner is registered dealer under CST Act, 1956 and under A.P. VAT Act, 2005. The petitioner effected interstate sales of sanitary goods against C -declaration forms and reported the same during the tax period 2010 -2011 under the CST Act. The petitioners claimed input tax credit against the output tax liability under the CST Act and claimed the same under the CST VI returns. However, the 1st respondent confirmed the turnover in the assessment year dated 23 -01 -2014 and issued tax notice dated 31 -05 -2013 proposing to levy Central Sales Tax (CST) of Rs. 6,36,218/ - as against lesser turnover. The petitioner already paid sales tax of Rs. 4,40,661/ - while submitting monthly VAT returns, thus raising balance disputed CST of Rs. 1,95,55/ - which has not been collected by the petitioner. The 1st respondent without verifying the facts and even without even looking in to the explanation submitted by the petitioner confirmed the showcause notice dated 31 -05 -2013 arbitrarily and illegally, though the petitioner sought for personal hearing.

(2.) THE 1st respondent did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing and thereby passed assessment order dated 23 -01 -2014 and it is ex -facie arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the petitioner sought for a direction by way of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the assessment order dated 23 -01 -2014.

(3.) LEARNED Special Standing Counsel for the sales tax contended that the request made in the reply or explanation is not clear and it is subject to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent passed an order in accordance with law as he felt that no personal hearing need be given; Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same.