2024 (1) TMI 176 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory alternative remedy - Validity of assessment order - levy of penalty - specific stand of the respondents is that the order is passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice of following statutory provisions by serving the notices to which the dealer did not respond - HELD THAT - It is evident from Rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, that a notice required or authorized under the Act or the Rules to be served shall be considered as sufficiently served, if it is sent by registered post to such place of residence, office or business or to the person s usual or last known address in the State. Clause (c) of Rule 64 (1) provides for sending the notice through E-mail. In view of Rule 64, and Para 5 of the counter affidavit which shows sending of the notices by Post or/and E-mail, it shall be considered in law that the dealer was sufficiently served. Anything to the contrary has not been brought on record - under sub- section (1), shall be considered as sufficiently served is not dependent upon the certificate of service under sub-section (2). Besides, the averments of Para 5 of the counter affidavit having not been controverted on oath, the question of proof by certificate of service in evidence, does not arise in the present case - there are no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice for the argument of no service of the notices before passing the impugned orders. The petitioner has the statutory alternative remedy. Without prejudice to that right, but subject to the due process of law and the law of limitation, the petitioner is at liberty to avail statutory remedy, on such grounds as may be open, other than the one dealt with in this judgment, if so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the challenge to impugned assessment orders and penalty orders under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the alleged violation of principles of natural justice in the issuance and service of notices.

Impugned Assessment Orders:
The Writ Petition challenged the assessment orders dated 31.01.2022 and the penalty order dated 30.03.2022. The petitioner argued a violation of natural justice principles due to the alleged lack of notice and service of documents. The impugned orders detailed multiple attempts to notify the dealer, including show cause notices, personal hearing notices, and final notices. The dealer failed to respond to these notices, leading to the assessment and penalty orders being passed.

Service of Notices and Principles of Natural Justice:
The respondents contended that all notices and orders were served on the petitioner through valid modes of service, including registered post and email. The counter affidavit highlighted the specific modes of service for each notice, emphasizing compliance with Rule 64 of the APVAT Rules, 2005. The petitioner disputed the service of notices, claiming lack of awareness, but the Court found no reason to doubt the service as per the records presented.

Legal Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined Rule 64 of the APVAT Rules, 2005, which outlines the modes of service for notices and orders. The rule allows for service through registered post or email, as demonstrated in the present case. The absence of a certificate of service did not invalidate the sufficiency of service as per the rule. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument of a violation of natural justice, emphasizing the adequacy of service and the dealer's failure to respond to the notices. The Court dismissed the writ petition, noting the availability of statutory remedies for the petitioner to pursue, subject to due process and legal limitations.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment and penalty orders, citing no violation of natural justice in the service of notices. The petitioner was advised to pursue statutory remedies if desired, while any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed without costs.