9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed - The first respondent strictly adhered to the procedure contemplated under Rule 64 of the VAT Rules before passing the assessment order. There was no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the assessment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice - the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 31 of the VAT Act – Decided against Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed the impugned assessment order dated 23.08.2012 purportedly in exercise of the powers under Rule 25 (5) of the A.P. VAT Rules, 2005. A copy of the said order was served on the petitioner on 28.08.2012 and again by registered post on 3.10.2012. In the said order, it was alleged that though the notice in Form VAT-305A dated 18.7.2012 was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2012 and was also sent to his e-mail on 6.8.2012 inviting objections to the proposed assessment, the petitioner failed to respond. Assailing the assessment order, dated 23.08.2012, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the show-cause notice dated 18.7.2012 stated to have been issued by the 1st respondent was never received by the petitioner and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duce its books for verification. The said notice was returned with an endorsement refuzd reten sender . Again, another notice dated 25.7.2012 was issued and that was also returned with an endorsement no such adr returned for want of door No. . After obtaining necessary authorisation from the Deputy Commissioner on 03.8.2012, in terms of Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, the VAT Rules) the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 04.8.2012 by registered post acknowledgement due, proposing to levy tax based on the detailed VAT ledger of the petitioner available with the department. The said notice was also returned unserved with an endorsement left reten sender . The show cause notice was also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficiently served, a) on a person being an individual other than in a representative capacity if- i) it is personally served on that person; or ii) it is left at the person's usual or last known place of residence or office or business in the State; or iii) 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; or b) on any other person if- i) it is personally served on the nominated person; or ii) it is left at the registered office of the person or the person's address for service of notices under the Act; or iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em, Addanki, Prakasam (Dist.) 523 201. No such addressee. Returned for want of door No. 3. Show Cause Notice dated 04.8.2012 prosing to levy tax based on the detailed VAT ledger available with department. Sri Venkateswara Trading Co., D.No.37/87/1, Prop: Kothamasu Kasi Viswanadha Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Gajulapalem, Addanki V M, Prakasam District, C/o.D.No.1-42, Main Road, Addanki, Prakasam (Dt.) Left. Returned to sender From the above table, it is clear that all the notices were sent to the correct address of the petitioner, as mentioned in the writ petition. As held in C.C.Alavi Haji v Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 when a notice is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s case (W.P.No.22972 of 2013, dated 02.8.2013 supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and therefore is in no way helpful to substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned assessment order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without resorting to the efficacious alternative remedy available to him under Section 31 of the VAT Act. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude the petitioner to avail t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
