2019 (8) TMI 479 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - ex-parte order - the material filed by the petitioner company was not taken into consideration - period 2009-10 to 2012-13 - A.P. VAT Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - It may be noted that the impugned assessment order was an appealable one and in the event such an appeal had been preferred, the petitioner company would have been statutorily bound to deposit part of the demanded tax amount as a condition precedent to maintain the appeal. As the petitioner company is now seeking relief on similar lines, it cannot be granted the benefit of a second round of hearing at its mere asking. It may however be noted that the impugned assessment order was passed as long back as in March, 2014, but it has not been given effect to despite the conditional interim order passed in this writ petition not being complied with. Therefore, giving an opportunity to the petitioner company to establish its case at this stage would not adversely affect the interest of the revenue. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad, subject to the petitioner company depositing 12.5% of the assessed tax amount of ₹ 8,53,02,597/- with the Commercial Tax Officer, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.

Issues: Challenge to assessment order under A.P. VAT Act, 2005 for tax period 2009-10 to 2012-13, non-compliance with conditional interim stay, assertion of ex-parte nature of assessment order, opportunity to substantiate case, requirement of deposit for appeal, delay in effectuating assessment order, relief granted subject to deposit and re-assessment.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The writ petition challenged the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 by the Commercial Tax Officer under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 for the tax period 2009-10 to 2012-13, holding the petitioner company liable for tax dues amounting to ?8,53,02,597. The petitioner sought to set aside this order.

Non-Compliance with Stay Order:
Although an interim stay was conditionally granted on further proceedings related to the assessment order, the petitioner failed to comply with the condition of depositing 50% of the disputed tax amount as directed, leading to non-compliance with the stay order.

Ex-Parte Nature of Assessment Order:
The petitioner claimed the assessment order was ex-parte as their submitted material was allegedly not considered. However, the respondents contended that the material was not available with them. This factual dispute was deemed unresolved in the writ petition.

Opportunity to Substantiate Case:
The petitioner asserted that given an opportunity, they could substantiate their case before the authority. The court acknowledged this assertion but noted that the assessment order was appealable, requiring a deposit for appeal maintenance, which the petitioner did not fulfill.

Delay in Effectuating Assessment Order:
Despite the assessment order being passed in March 2014, it had not been enforced due to the conditional interim order's non-compliance. The court highlighted that granting an opportunity to the petitioner at this stage would not harm the revenue's interest.

Relief Granted Subject to Deposit and Re-assessment:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the assessment order subject to the petitioner depositing 12.5% of the assessed tax amount within six weeks. The petitioner was directed to submit all supporting documents to the Commercial Tax Officer for re-assessment, to be completed within four weeks from the deposit date. Any prior deposits by the petitioner would be credited. Pending petitions were disposed of with no costs awarded.

← Previous Next →