9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t jurisdiction. The petitioner, a partnership-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes, is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). They purchased a sick unit, hitherto owned by the third respondent, in a public auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) in exercise of its powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. It is the petitioner's case that, on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 52.56 lakhs, the APSFC had executed a sale deed dated November 2, 2009 in their favour ; the factory premises consisting of land admeasuring 6000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated July 26, 2010 was furnished to them on November 9, 2010 ; and, despite filing an application under the Right to Information Act, neither was a copy of the notice in form VAT 125, nor the cover alleged to have been returned unserved, made available to them. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had filed W. P. No. 21567 of 2009 challenging the proposed action of the fourth respondent, in handing over the lock and keys of the factory premises to third parties without notice to them, as being illegal ; this court, in its order dated October 13, 2009, had held that the plant and machinery was handed over on October 5, 2009, to the successful bidder in the auction conducted as per the notification dated June 11, 2009, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellation of registration dated September 25, 2010 is bereft of reasons ; copies of the show-cause notice in form VAT 125 proposing cancellation of registration, and the final order in form 124, were not furnished despite a specific request ; and the action of the first respondent was illegal. In her counter-affidavit, the first respondent would submit that pursuant to the letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received from the counsel for the third respondent, she had issued a show-cause notice proposing to cancel registration on the ground that the tide to the business premises was in dispute ; the said notice sent by RPAD on May 19, 2010, to the address mentioned in the registration certificate, was returned unserved with the endorsement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent that the notice proposing cancellation in form 125 dated May 19, 2010 was sent to them by RPAD on May 19, 2010 itself. According to the petitioner the covers and documents, submitted along with the counter-affidavit, do not show any such notice having been sent by RPAD on May 19, 2010 ; both the registered envelopes, alleged to contain the show-cause notice dated May 19, 2010 and the cancellation order dated July 26, 2010, were sent only on August 9, 2010 which established that, despite the mandate of section 19 of the Act, they were not put on notice before the certificate of registration was cancelled ; the first respondent's averment on oath that the notice dated May 19, 2010 was sent by RPAD was not only false, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counter-affidavit filed earlier she had stated that the notice, proposing cancellation of the certificate of registration, was sent to the petitioner on May 19, 2010 by RPAD, it is her case in the additional counter-affidavit that the said notice dated May 19, 2010 was sent by certificate of posting on May 20, 2010. While she would assert that, immediately thereafter, she had sent a copy of the notice dated May 19, 2010 again by RAPD, the date on which the notice was sent again by RPAD is not reflected in the additional counter-affidavit. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that authorities resort to the "certificate of posting" route for service of notices only to avoid producing proof of service. That this method of service is capabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient reasons to do so. Admittedly, the show-cause notice dated May 19, 2010 was not even served on the petitioner before the certificate of registration was cancelled. As the petitioner was neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated July 26, 2010 falls foul of the statutory requirement of section 19(2) of the Act and is therefore, quashed. That leaves us with the action to be taken against the first respondent for her having resorted to falsehood only in order to justify her illegal act of cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration in contravention of section 19(2) of the Act. The Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
