HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.23971 of 2020
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the assessment
order AO No.31684 dt.18-03-2020 passed by the 1st respondent under
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016.
2. Petitioner contends that it received a demand notice dt.10-11-2020 issued by the 1st respondent demanding payment of tax of Rs.1,66,896/- under the Act for the above period, and then petitioner enquired into the matter, and came to know about passing of the impugned order.
3. Petitioner contends that no show cause notice and personal hearing notices were served on petitioner in the manner indicated under Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005 and notices appear to have been sent through e.mail though such a mode of service is not acceptable as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court in SOA Software Engineering Private Limited1.
4. Petitioner contends that failure of the 1st respondent to serve show cause notice on petitioner or provide personal hearing to the 1 57 APSTJ 103 (DB) ::2::
petitioner vitiates the impugned order as there is violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Petitioner further contends that the impugned assessment order has been passed in the name of the proprietor of the petitioner concern even though the assessee is the petitioner, and this also vitiates the said order.
6. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents does not dispute that prior to the passing of the impugned assessment order, pre-assessment show cause notice was not served on petitioner, and personal hearing was also not afforded to the petitioner, though the impugned order states that such personal hearing was held on 18-03-2020 and proprietor of the petitioner represented the case. He also does not dispute that the assessee in the instant case is the petitioner, but the assessment order is passed in the name of the proprietor of the petitioner concern, which is not permissible.
7. In these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that there has been violation of principles of natural justice causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and that the impugned order is not sustainable.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the impugned Assessment Order AO No.31684 dt.18-03-2020 passed by 1st respondent is set aside; the matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the 1st respondent is directed to ::3::
issue show cause notice to petitioner indicating the turnover proposed to be taxed under the Act and also the tax proposed to be levied thereon in accordance with Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana VAT Rules, 2005; petitioner is granted six (06) weeks time from the date of receipt of such show cause to file objections along with supporting material; a personal hearing shall be provided to the petitioner; and then a reasoned order be passed by 1st respondent in accordance with law and be communicated to the petitioner. No costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J ________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 22-01-2021 Vsv