2024 (7) TMI 1114 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Exemption in relation to a turn-over - time limitation - contention of the petitioner is that the concerned F Forms relating to the disputed turn-over had been misplaced and could not be placed before the Assessing Officer in time - whether this Court can direct the 1st respondent-Assessing Authority to furnish a certified copy of the assessment order to enable the petitioner to file an appeal at this stage or whether the said filing of the appeal is now barred by limitation? - HELD THAT - The period for passing the assessment order for the year 2015-2016 ended on 31.03.2020. The petitioner, which is a large Multi-National Company, cannot plead ignorance of the law or that the petitioner is awaiting an order despite the fact that the period for completing assessment had lapsed. Further, the contention, that the petitioner was under the impression that no demand was raised against the petitioner, cannot be accepted as such a conclusion could have been drawn only if an assessment order had been passed and served on the petitioner. The fact that the first step taken by the petitioner for the purpose of filing was only in June, 2022 when an application was made for a certified copy of the assessment order also militates against the version set up by the petitioner. The arguments that the service of the order by e-mail would not be proper service under Rule 64 of the Rules does not stand in view of the amendment to the said Rule. Further, the contention that service on the e-mail ID of the petitioner would not amount to proper service as the e-mail ID was inactive also cannot be accepted as it would be the duty of the petitioner to inform the Assessing Officer of any change in the e-mail ID. There are no reason to intervene or interfere in this case - the present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Issues:
1. Exemption sought under Central Sales Tax Act for a specific turnover.
2. Assessment order sent via email not received by petitioner.
3. Refunds denied due to completed assessment in 2019.
4. Request for certified copy of assessment order denied.
5. Disputed F Forms misplaced, affecting appeal filing.
6. Interpretation of Rule 64 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules.
7. Validity of service through email under amended Rule 64.
8. Petitioner's contention on service of assessment order via email.
9. Applicability of Rule 12 of Central Sales Tax Rules on F Forms filing.
10. Direction to Assessing Authority for certified copy of assessment order.
11. Petitioner's awareness of law and assessment completion period.
12. Proper service of order via email and petitioner's duty to update information.
13. Court's decision on intervention in the case.
14. Closure of pending interlocutory applications.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, sought exemption for a specific turnover but faced a shortfall in F Forms leading to a demand raised by the Assessing Officer based on an assessment order dated 28.12.2019, sent via email which the petitioner claims to have not received due to the inactive email ID of the recipient officer.

2. The petitioner was unaware of the assessment order and subsequent adjustments resulting in denied refunds, as the officer handling the email ID had left, and the petitioner was not informed of the order. The petitioner's request for a certified copy of the assessment order was denied, hindering the appeal filing process.

3. The petitioner argued that the misplaced F Forms could be rectified during appeals, citing a judgment permitting such actions. However, the inability to file an appeal due to the lack of a certified copy of the order was highlighted, emphasizing the petitioner's limited options and the need for intervention.

4. The petitioner's counsel referred to previous judgments regarding service of notice via email and the subsequent amendment to Rule 64, raising questions about the applicability of the earlier decisions in the current scenario.

5. The court deliberated on the petitioner's duty to update contact information and the validity of email service under the amended rule, ultimately dismissing the writ petition citing the petitioner's delayed actions and lack of grounds for intervention.

6. The court emphasized the petitioner's obligation to stay informed, especially being a large Multi-National Company, and rejected arguments against the email service and the petitioner's delayed response in seeking a certified copy of the assessment order for appeal filing.

← Previous Next →