9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent dated November 8, 2012 remitting the matter for de novo consideration by the first respondent cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. Since the order of assessment dated August 31, 2012 passed by the first respondent consequent on the earlier order of the second respondent-appellate authority dated September 11, 2008, received by the first respondent on October 29, 2008, is barred by the period of limitation specified in section 37 of the 2005 Act, the said order of assessment is also unsustainable and is so declared. W.P. allowed. - Writ Petition No. 39370 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2013 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAMACHANDRA RAO M.S., JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by GODA RAGHURAM J.- The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was communicated to the first respondent on October 29, 2008 and the first respondent communicated in turn the appellate order to the petitioner on the same date. After the remit as above, the first respondent passed a reassessment order on August 31, 2012. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent wherein, apart from challenging the reassessment order dated August 31, 2012 on merits, the petitioner also contended that the order of reassessment consequent on the appellate order dated September 11, 2008, was barred by limitation under section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The second respondent however in the impugned appellate order dated November 8, 2012 recorded the petitioner's co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f reassessment consequent on the remand to the said respondent by the second respondent's appellate order dated September 11, 2008, communicated to the first respondent/assessing authority on October 29, 2008. Consequently the first respondent should have passed the order of assessment on or before October 28, 2011. The order of assessment was however passed on August 31, 2012. This error was glossed over in the appellate order of the second respondent dated November 8, 2012 by relying on an inapplicable statutory provision, namely, section 21(4), whereas it is section 37 of the 2005 Act, which is applicable, is the position conceded on behalf of the Revenue. On the aforesaid analysis the order of the second respondent dated November ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
