M/S. Salasar Enterprises vs Commercial Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 142 Tel

     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

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