TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 27.06.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard Sri K. Raji Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents. As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioner was assessed for the tax period 2006-07 to 2009-10 by order dated 28.04.2011 and a demand for ₹ 15,41,30,645/-was raised on the ground that supply by agents of the petitioner to the foreign going vessels constitute sale and that the petitioner is not entitled to claim input VAT credit as it is not a registered dealer under the provisions of A.P. VAT Act, 2005. Challenging the said order of assessment, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The contentions of the Authorized Representative are examined carefully. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) issued notice for assessment of tax of ₹ 1,52,03,321/- for the year 2010-11 because the assessee-company has not produced the books of accounts for verification before initiating assessment proceedings; and therefore based on the material communicated by the RV and EO and also from the oil companies assessment was proposed. The Section 32 (5) of AP VAT Act, 2005 says It shall be lawful for the Commissioner to defer any proceeding under this section by the reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or proceeding in question. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the question of law involved in W.P.No.23732 of 2011 i.e., whether the supplies made by the agents of the petitioner to the foreign going vessel are sales and are exigible to tax under the A.P. VAT Act in the hands of the petitioner and whether the petitioner is entitled to claim input VAT credit, has a direct bearing on the assessment proceedings initiated for the tax period 2010-11. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the proposed assessment for the tax period 2010-11 has to be deferred till W.P.No.23732 of 2011 is disposed of. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent has in fact admitted that the issue involved in the proposed amendment is same as in W.P.N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity of an order made by a statutory functionary must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein, but cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the reasons sought to be explained in the counter-affidavit. It is also relevant to note that while considering the correctness of the earlier order passed by the 1st respondent in directing the petitioner to furnish a Bank Guarantee as a condition for deferment of proceedings, this Court held in W.P.No.4516 of 2013 as under:- The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee is destructive of the purpose for which power and discretion is conferred under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|