VELANKANI MATHA COTTON INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing impugned notice dated 12.12.2012 in Form VAT 305 in TIN 28949296158 for the assessment years 2009 -10 to 2011 -12, as illegal and arbitrary. Vide the impugned notice, ex parte assessment has been done against the petitioner. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the show cause notice, dated 16.08.2012, was served on one K. Anudeep Reddy, who was earlier an employee of the petitioner company, but his service has been terminated in the month of January, 2012. He further submits that the said Anudeep Reddy was not an authorized representative of the petitioner company.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that on earlier occasions, said Anudeep Reddy had been representing the petitioner company. However, there is no material on record to show that Anudeep Reddy was authorized to represent the company.

(3.) IN view of the above, we set aside the impugned assessment order dated 12.12.2012 with a direction that the petitioner company may file its reply to the show cause notice issued earlier, by considering this order as a notice.