F1-TIME MACHINE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings, demand notice issued by the 4th respondent vide AO/6446, dated 05.02.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, contrary to the provisions of AP VAT Act and the rules framed thereunder in view of the circular issued by the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.2013 vide CCT's reference No. AII(1) 115/2013, without any opportunity and to set aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2014 vide AO/6446, alleging that the petitioner was assessed by the 4th respondent for the year 2010 -11 i.e., April 2010 to March 2011 and issued proceedings under Rule 25(5) of the Act to a tune of Rs. 99,53,598/ - and the same is questioned by the petitioner as it was passed without providing any reasonable opportunity and totally flagrant violation of the instructions and circular issued by the Department. Thus, passing impugned order without affording opportunity is totally against the principles of natural justice and hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. The petitioner is within the jurisdictional limit of the 3rd respondent Division and initially on 22.03.2013, a notice of assessment of the VAT under Rule 25(5) was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit) Panjagutta Division duly assessing the tax payable for the year 2008 -2012 and for 3 years assessing to Rs. 50,34,198/ - as due, to the Commercial Tax Department. The proceedings are self explanatory and the officer has derived the amount by taking into books of accounts submitted by the petitioner and Form No. 305 was issued. Pursuant to the same, on 16.05.2012 he issued reminder notice requesting to attend personal hearing scheduled on 23.05.2013. while the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent has entrusted the assessment of tax to the Commercial Tax Officer, Jubliee Hills Circle, dated 10.05.2013 (Form ADM IB) for which the Commercial Tax Officer, Jubliee Hills Circle on 25.05.2013 issued Form 310 notice to the petitioner for production of documents and it was duly entailing the nature of documents to be produced. As directed, the petitioner has deposited all the documents including (Books of Accounts) and receipt of the same was acknowledged by the 4th respondent.

(2.) THE 1st assessment notice was issued by the CTO (Audit) dated 22.03.2013, the petitioner submitted his explanation which is under consideration, however, during pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner received another notice issued by CTO, Jubliee Hills Circle, on 23.09.2013 onwards and finally on 03.11.2013 directed the petitioner to appear for personal hearing and the petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent extended time for attendance for hearing and simultaneously requested to return the books which were deposited enabling the petitioner to file objections effectively.

(3.) THE petitioner further contended that the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, issued a circular vide CCT's reference No. AII(1) 115/2013, dated 31.05.2013 stating that the dealers should be given reasonable opportunity and at the same time the circular also discloses that it is based on the direction given by this Court only. Thus, the order passed by the 4th respondent is totally contrary to the circular issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office. Hence, the order passed by the 4th respondent is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.