9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing into consideration the liberty of an individual, did not agree with the argument of the respondents that statutory period for filing charge sheet under Section 167 Cr.P.C. also stands extended during the pandemic. As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in S. Kasi s case, the limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings was extended only to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/applications etc., would become time barred if they are not being able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was to the benefit of the litigants, who have to take recourse of law, as per the applicable statute. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. The Division Bench of this Court in V-Guard Industries Limited [ 2022 (1) TMI 1012 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] extended the period of limitation even in respect of orders to be passed by statutory authorities also. Further, as the State is also a litigant, and if orders could not be passed within the time prescribed due to the prevailing pandemic, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to respondent No.1. However, after verifying the documents supporting the claim, exemption was granted. (ii) Five [05] years later, the petitioner received proceedings, dated 24.02.2022 through e-mail and also by way of personal service on 14.03.2022, withdrawing the exemption granted to the extent of a turnover of Rs.3,42,12,210/- covered by three [03] H Forms issued by M/s. Gupta Hair Products (P) Limited, Chennai. A tax demand of Rs.39,48,308/- was raised. It is said that respondent No.1 took up reassessment under Rule 14-A(8) of the C.S.T. (A.P.) Rules, enquired with the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pallavaram Circle, Chennai, as to the genuineness of H Forms and believing the representation made, that Forms were not issued by their Officers, withdrew the exemption. Three [03] Forms, which are subject matter of dispute, are L2-038070, L1-151433 L1-151432. This withdrawal of exemption is subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. (i) Sri. S. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, mainly submits that the proceedings issued by the authority, which are subject matter of dispute in the present Writ Petition, are barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (ST), Pallavaram Circle, Chennai, has submitted verification report stating that H Forms were not issued by the Department. Having regard to the same, the exemption granted/covered by H Forms in question were withdrawn. It is said that notices were issued to the dealers and sent to the last known address of the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due but the same were returned as no such person is available . Under those circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner, as stated earlier, is that the impugned order came to be passed holding that the H Forms submitted by the petitioner are bogus, without hearing the petitioner. The assessment order was passed on 20.05.2017, wherein the request of the petitioner for exemption was allowed. Five years later, i.e., in the year 2022, the order impugned came to be passed withdrawing the exemption. Though the respondents claim that the notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due but the same were returned to the sender with an endorsement party not in village, hence, returned to sender . It might be true that the notice was sent to the correct address avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Dealing with the same, the Apex Court, having regard to the factual situation and taking into consideration the liberty of an individual, did not agree with the argument of the respondents that statutory period for filing charge sheet under Section 167 Cr.P.C. also stands extended during the pandemic. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. The order, dated 23.03.2020, is to the following effect:- This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge). 13. The issue as to extending the period of limitation in case of tax matters, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in V-Guard Industries Limited (referred supra). In the said case, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a situation where initially an assessment order was passed levying tax, but on appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 10.09.2018, set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to respondent No.1 with a direction to examine the issue afresh after verifying the relevant records. Pursuant to notice issued on remand, the petitioner produced all records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. As observed by us earlier, the Division Bench of this Court extended the period of limitation even in respect of orders to be passed by statutory authorities also. Further, as the State is also a litigant, and if orders could not be passed within the time prescribed due to the prevailing pandemic, coupled with the difficulties faced by the authorities in passing orders due to pandemic, they would be barred by limitation. 16. Apart from that, when the assesses are permitted to file their returns beyond the period prescribed due to pandemic, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and circulars issued, we feel that the authorities also should be given time to pass orders during the pandemic. 17. Possibility of State Authorities falling sick and not able to discharge their functions due to pandemic cannot also be ruled out, which cannot be taken advantage of by the tax evaders or defaulters, more so, when such a benefit is given to the assesses or his representatives during the pandemic. Hence, we are in agreement with the view expressed in V-Guard Industries s case (referred supra) and hold that the period of limitation, as extended by the Hon ble Apex Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
