2013 (8) TMI 862 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Transfer of right to use goods - Turnover was exempted from tax on the alternative ground of same falling within section 5(2) of the CST Act as sale in the course of import - Held that - original assessment order was passed on June 19, 2007 and the order dated February 26, 2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was served on the CTO in the month of February, 2008. The Joint Commissioner who is the third respondent made the revised order on October 16, 2008 and the revision order finally was passed on February 25, 2012. The disputed turnover of ₹ 9,19,98,100 was not the subject matter in the revision order passed by the third respondent on February 25, 2012. The second respondent in its order dated February 25, 2008 had remanded the case for reassessment with respect to the turnover of ₹ 9,19,98,100 and after remand there was no consequential order passed. For the first time, the consequential order was sought to be passed on March 15, 2012 which was appealed to the second respondent who rejected the submission that the assessment as barred on the ground of limitation by order dated March 19, 2013. In this case also in the counter-affidavit, there was no denial with respect to the impugned order having become time-barred. - with respect to the assessment year 200405 under the APGST Act even with respect to orders passed under section 37 of A.P. VAT Act as the prescribed period of limitation is three years, the order dated March 19, 2013 passed under A.P. VAT Act also is liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred assessment orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the A.P. VAT Act, 2005.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved challenges to assessment orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the A.P. VAT Act, 2005. The petitioner, a Portugal company with a project office in Mumbai, was assessed on turnovers related to the transfer of right to use goods and transfer of property in goods during the execution of works contract. The second respondent partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the first respondent for further assessment. However, the petitioner did not receive any notice or orders from the first respondent within the stipulated timeframe under section 24A of the APGST Act. Subsequently, the third respondent proposed to revise the order related to a specific turnover under the CST Act, leading to further appeals and disputes regarding the timeliness and validity of the assessments.

In the case related to the A.P. VAT Act, the assessment for a specific year was also challenged on grounds of being time-barred. The Joint Commissioner's revised order did not address the disputed turnover, and a consequential order was passed much later, leading to objections regarding the limitation period for such orders. The court, considering the precedent and legal provisions, held that the impugned orders were indeed time-barred and set them aside, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods for assessments under both Acts.

Therefore, the High Court allowed both writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders confirming the assessments as time-barred under the APGST Act and the A.P. VAT Act. No costs were awarded, and pending petitions were to be closed accordingly. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with statutory timelines for assessments to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in tax matters.