2022 (1) TMI 10 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Forfeiture of excess TDS - Section 22(3-A) read with Rule 18 (3) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - HELD THAT - The Court, for the present, is not inclined to interfere, primarily on account of the factual aspects which, in the considered opinion of the Court, Appellate the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi is more equipped to go into as it would require going through documents and even taking of evidence. Moreover, since the statute itself provides for an appellate forum, the same is meant for giving opportunity to the aggrieved person to have departmental remedy before invoking jurisdiction of the Court and the Court would, thus, not short circuit such statutory forums. The writ petition is disposed of observing that the petitioner, if so advised, may avail the remedy available to it by filing an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment order challenged for excess TDS forfeiture under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
2. Petitioner's claim for refund of TDS amount and challenge to additional demand.
3. Legality of passing forfeiture order within assessment order.
4. Applicability of time limit for forfeiture.
5. Comparison with relevant legal precedents.
6. Government's argument for alternative remedy before Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
7. Court's decision on interference and direction for approaching the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner contested an assessment order dated 17.11.2021, objecting to the forfeiture of excess TDS amount of ?4,27,60,806 under Section 22(3-A) read with Rule 18(3)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner argued that the assessment order was erroneous and illegal, claiming entitlement to a refund of the forfeited TDS amount and disputing an additional demand of ?1,36,63,732. The petitioner highlighted procedural irregularities in the assessment, including passing a forfeiture order within the assessment order itself.

3. The petitioner emphasized that the forfeiture order was impermissible within the assessment order and exceeded the statutory time limit for such actions, challenging the validity of the authority's decision.

4. Citing legal precedents like Filtrco & Anr vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Limited v. Superintending Engineer, the petitioner sought the court's intervention to review the case on its merits rather than dismissing it outright.

5. The Government Pleader argued that the assessment order meticulously addressed each component, demonstrating the collection and deduction of taxes, leading to the conclusion of excess TDS forfeiture and an additional payable amount. The Government emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

6. Referring to the judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, the Government contended that the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate process unless fundamental rights, natural justice principles, jurisdictional excess, or statutory vires issues were involved, which were absent in the present case.

7. The Court declined to interfere at the current stage, advising the petitioner to approach the Appellate Deputy Commissioner for detailed examination of factual aspects and evidence. The Court stressed the importance of exhausting departmental remedies before seeking judicial intervention, directing the petitioner to file an appeal within the specified time frame.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Tirupathi, within the stipulated period, ensuring a fair hearing and decision in accordance with the law.