EASTERN CONDIMENTS (P) LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for issuing of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2014 in 'Form' for the years 2011 -2012 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (for short the 'APVAT Act) as illegal, arbitrary, high -handed and without any authority. The petitioner is a registered dealer and assessee under the provisions of APVAT Act. For the years 2011 -2012 the petitioner through its monthly returns has reported the turnovers scored by it and has paid the applicable taxes. The assessment was completed vide order dated 21.03.2013 adopting fair market value under Section 2(15) to the turnover of branch transfers though it has no relevance to the facts of the case since the value adopted for branch transfer of the goods by the petitioner can never be the price at which the goods are sold in the local market. The 1st respondent by adopting the fair market value for arriving the estimated value of the goods stock transferred also restricted the input credit arrived under declaration of tax without any basis. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent in appeal. The 2nd respondent allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.07.2013, remanded the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction to re -assess after obtaining necessary authorization in terms of R.59, without going into the merits in the contentions of the petitioner/assessee.

(2.) IN pursuance of the direction of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent obtained authorization and issued show cause notice dated 22.11.2013 and the petitioner/assessee submitted its objections on the proposed assessment. But the 1st respondent without considering any of the objections passed the impugned order against the purport of the direction given by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 17.07.2013. Hence, the order is illegal arbitrary and prayed to set aside the order dated 06.05.2014.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the observations of the 2nd respondent are clear that the assessment was mechanical and without any authorization, directed the 1st respondent to reassess the tax after considering the objections. But the 1st respondent without considering the purport of the direction of the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice and passed the impugned order again mechanically and none of the objections raised by the petitioner/assessee were considered. Therefore, the impugned order is parse flagrant violation of the direction given by the 2nd respondent and against the principles of natural justice and finally prayed to set aside the order.