M/S. Rusat Timber Depot vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 143 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                 AND
       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                WRIT PETITION No.23980 of 2020

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)


       In this Writ Petition, the petitioner assails the assessment order

AO No.44815 dt.29-03-2020 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 a show cause notice had been sent by

e.mail on 04-06-2019 to the petitioner by 1st respondent, which is not

a valid mode of service under Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana VAT

Rules, 2005; petitioner could not have filed a reply thereto as he was

busy with the tax audit under the Income Tax Act; petitioner started

collecting information to substantiate the claim for exemption in the

month of February, 2020; but even before the petitioner could submit

the documentary evidence, the impugned order has been passed on the

pretext that the assessment would get time barred; and that even the

said order was communicated to the petitioner through e.mail, which

is not a permissible mode of service under Rule 64(1)(b) of the

Telangana VAT Rules, 2005.

3. Petitioner contends that a garnishee notice was received from

the 1st respondent on 21-11-2020 by the banker of the petitioner for ::2::

recovery of a sum of Rs.38,84,264/- for the period 2015-16 under the

Act.

4. Petitioner contends that petitioner is in possession of certain 'H'

form declarations and it approached the territorial Deputy

Commissioner to accept the same as per the judgment in Godrej

Agrovet Limited1, but the latter refused to accept the same.

5. According to the petitioner, signed copy of the order was not

communicated to the petitioner till 16-12-2020, though in the

meantime attachment notice dt.21-11-2020 had been revoked by the

1st respondent.

6. Petitioner contends that without serving pre-assessment show

cause notice as per the provisions of the Telangana VAT Rules, the

1st respondent could not have passed the impugned order.

7. Petitioner also contends that petitioner had not filed any

response on 22-11-2019 as is alleged in the impugned order; that

petitioner was also not afforded a personal hearing; and no final show

cause notice dt.06-03-2020 was served on petitioner by the

1st respondent.

8. These facts are not disputed by Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned

Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondents.

41 APSTJ 92 ::3::

9. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there has been a violation of principles of natural justice causing grave

prejudice to the petitioner.

10. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner is allowed; the Assessment

Order AO No.44815 dt.29-03-2020 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 issue show cause notice

to the 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.

11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 22-01-2021 Vsv