9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 939 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty order - calculation of annual sales turnover - applicability of provisions of Section 4 of Andhra Pradesh VAT Act,2005 in general and sub-Section (9) of Section 4 of the Act in particular - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer shows that the Assessing Officer in the impugned order categorically discussed about the applicability of various provisions of law, including Section 4 and also explanation to Clause (d) of the sub-Section (9) of Section 4 of the Act and recorded the conclusions. It is not in dispute that immediately after receipt of the impugned orders, the present Writ Petitions came to be instituted before this Court. All these contentions now sought to be urged in the present Writ Petitions, in the considered opinion of this Court, can as well be agitated before the Contempt Court under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and de-merits of the case. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order and Penalty Order Analysis: In the present case, two Writ Petitions were filed challenging the Assessment Order and Penalty Order issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The Assessment Order dated 03-10-2020 required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.18,66,191, while the Penalty Order dated 17-11-2021 was challenged in the second Writ Petition. The issues in these petitions revolved around the Assessment Order for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court, which set aside the Assessment Order and directed a fresh assessment. Despite multiple rounds of litigation, the Assessing Officer issued a new Assessment Order demanding payment from the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Assessment Order and Penalty Order were erroneous, contrary to law, and against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005. Specifically, it was contended that the turnover of the petitioner's restaurants in different locations should be considered separately for tax purposes, resulting in a lower tax liability of 4.5% instead of the 14.5% demanded by the Assessing Officer. However, the Government Pleader opposed the Writ Petition, arguing that the petitioner should have availed the remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Act before approaching the Court. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer had considered the relevant provisions of the law in the impugned order and concluded on the applicability of Section 4 and its explanation to Clause (d) of sub-Section (9) of the Act. Since the petitioner had not exhausted the available remedy of appeal under Section 31 of the Act, the Court declined to delve into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of availing alternative remedies before seeking relief through Writ Petitions. As a result, the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, allowing the petitioner to file a Statutory Appeal against the impugned orders within two weeks. The requirement for pre-deposits was waived considering the petitioner's previous deposit of Rs.10,00,000. The Court directed that if any Appeals were filed within the specified time frame, they should be promptly considered and decided in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay on coercive actions against the petitioner until the Appeals were resolved, with no costs imposed on either party. In conclusion, the Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention and provided the petitioner with an opportunity to appeal the Assessment and Penalty Orders through the prescribed statutory process.
|
