9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner is a Company engaged in the sale of Software and provision of IT services. 3. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Telangana VAT Act and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1996 (for short "the CST Act"). It filed its returns under the VAT Act and CST Act reporting the turnovers and paying applicable tax thereon. 4. Petitioner contends that for the year 2015-16 under the CST Act, the petitioner reported the turnovers; that the exports are not liable to tax under the CST Act; and that the inter-State sales of software is shown as Rs. 39,47,93,331/- and tax at 5% was paid thereon. 5. The 1st respondent took up the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2015-16. 6. The petitioner by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Telangana and Government of India due to outbreak of COVID-19. 13. The petitioner gave another email also on 13.04.2020 that it is unable to attend personal hearing due to nationwide lockdown and that the online response also could not be submitted due to technical glitch on the portal. The petitioner requested the 1st respondent to take up personal hearing after normalcy is restored. 14. But the impugned order dt.31.03.2020 was passed by the 1st respondent and it was served on the petitioner on the same day. Contentions of Counsel for petitioner 15. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the impugned order, the export turnover is considered at Rs. 9429.00 crore and given exemption, but the turnover for September, 2015 was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions. Contentions of the respondents 18. Sri J.Anil Kumar, Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes contended that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity by the 1st respondent and in any event the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under the CGST Act which the petitioner ought to avail. Consideration by the Court 19. From the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and the material placed on record, it is apparent that the impugned order dt.31.03.2020 was passed by the 1st respondent on the very last day for making such assessment i.e., 31.03.2020 for the period April, 2015 to March, 2016. 20. Though the 1st respondent had initiated the process through a show-cause notice on 13.06.2019, and the petitioner had responded ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs that on account of lack of time in view of the impending lapsing of limitation for making the assessment, not only was the petitioner denied proper opportunity to personally represent its case before the 1st respondent but also errors might have crept into the order of the 1st respondent passed on 31.03.2020. 26. In these circumstances, we hold that proper opportunity was denied to the petitioner to represent its case and there has been violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as personal hearings were fixed on 16.03.2020 for the first time during lockdown period disabling the petitioner and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. 27. Therefore, the existence of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
