Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (2) TMI 1173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... four per cent. to five per cent. In view of the provisions under section 67(5) of the Act, the fifth respondent-Authority can review its own orders, however, it is empowered to do so only by showing good and sufficient cause and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Therefore, having regard to the fact that no sufficient reasons are indicated in the clarificatory/reviewing order dated October 1, 2014, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated October 1, 2014 issued by the fifth respondent-Authority and the consequential assessment order dated December 24, 2014 issued by the second respondent-Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. However, we grant liberty to the fifth respondent-Authority under section 67 of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thout authority of law and jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same . . . The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business in purchase and sale of aluminium composite panels, chemicals used for cement and concrete mixing. It is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, the Act ) and is an assessee on the rolls of first respondent-Commercial Tax Officer, M. J. Market Circle, Hyderabad. It is the case of the petitioner that aluminium composite panels are covered by entry 27 of Schedule IV of the Act and, as such, the rate of tax applicable is at four per cent. to five per cent., but not at 14.5 per cent. In suppo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te panels is a goods falling under Schedule V of the Act, attracting tax at 14.5 per cent. Basing on the said order, the second respondent-Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gowliguda Circle, Hyderabad, has passed the impugned order in Case No. 03/2014, dated December 24, 2014, determining the tax payable by the petitioner at ₹ 2,05,46,324 for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The impugned order is passed mainly relying on the clarificatory order dated October 1, 2014 passed by the fifth respondent-Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Mainly, it is the case of the petitioner that the clarificatory order dated October 1, 2014 passed by the fifth respondent-Authority, in the absence of any clarification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd. Today, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that reasons are not assigned in the order dated October 1, 2014. Further, it is submitted that in similar situations in other States, the authorities have held that the aluminium composite panels fall analytically under Schedule V of the Act only, but not covered by entry 27 of Schedule IV of the Act, as such, they are charged tax at 14.5 per cent. At the same time, it is fairly submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in the order dated October 1, 2014, the fifth respondent-Authority has not assigned valid reasons. As per section 67 in Chapter IX of the Act, the Commissioner can constitute a State level Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings compri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed parties. A perusal of notices dated January 25, 2014 and February 18, 2014 issued by the fifth respondent-Authority to the petitioner also does not indicate any reasons for reviewing its earlier orders. Therefore, unless the petitioner, who is the affected party, is notified the reasons before reviewing the orders on the proposed ground of reviewing the order under section 67(5) of the Act, any order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is contrary to the said provision and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, having regard to the fact that no sufficient reasons are indicated in the clarificatory/reviewing order dated October 1, 2014, we deem it appropriate to set aside the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates