9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment orders were invalid, since the assessment orders were not served. The findings of the High Court, on the facts would not normally have required a second look by this court; however, the peculiar circumstances of this case compel scrutiny. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the assessee (on 15.04.2010) concededly, it made no attempt to file objections or even deposit the amounts the court had required it to. As a regular dealer, it had filed returns not only for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 but also later periods (i.e., AY 2009-10 and 2010-11) - The revenue however, pointed out to the High Court, that the representations never alleged that assessment orders were not served and that the attachments were therefore not compliant with provision of law. In the present case, arguendo if the assessee was unaware, in the first instance regarding the issuance of assessment orders against it, at least when the revenue filed a writ petition complaining about Canara Bank s proposal to auction the assessee s properties, it had impleaded the assessee too - The High Court, with due respect, fell into error, in holding that since the subject matter of the revenue s writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of the authorities that the arrears so reflected in Form V were erroneous. The assessee requested to cancel the said demand, since the assessment orders for the year 2001-02 and 2003-04 were revised on 24.04.2005 resulting in excess tax collection; it requested that such excess tax collected be adjusted for the subsequent demand. According to the assessee, the revenue thereafter did not issue any further notice and after lapse of about six years, issued a revised notice in Form V dated 20.02.2018 showing arrears of tax in a sum of 5,59,78,758/- for the tax ₹ periods 2005-06 to 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and attached land and building (belonging to the assessee) being Sy. No.182 - H.No.7-3-52/1/2 situated at Gaganpahad village, Rajender Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district measuring 2,224.05 square yards. The assessee relied on various representations Dated 18.06.2018, 16.07.2018, 23.08.2018, 24.10.2018, 05.03.2019, 18.06.2019, and 04.11.2019 asking the revenue to cancel the demand and attachment notices. 4. It was also urged that, though the assessee made several requests for furnishing copies of assessment orders and also the date of service of such orders passed, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 under the RR Act, before attaching the assessee s properties. Since there was no response, or compliance, an attachment order dated 03.02.2012 in Form V under the RR Act was issued. Even then the assessee did not approach the revenue to seek any relief and instead remained silent. 7. The revenue also urged that it became aware that the assessee s banker, Canara Bank, had issued a notification on 14.08.2011 bringing its immovable properties for sale in public auction to recover the loans extended to it. Under provisions of Section 25 and 26 of VAT Act, the tax arrears have a priority over the dues of the bank. They provide for first charge over the properties of the VAT dealer. Therefore, the revenue requested the petitioner s banker not to proceed with sale of the property, pursuant to the notification dated 14.08.2011 and also requested it to remit the sale proceeds towards the assessee s tax arrears, in case sale takes place in public auction. The revenue then approached the High Court by filing a writ petition W.P. No. 25943/2011 to declare the notification dated 14.08.2011 issued by the bank, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the VAT Act. The assessee was arr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice of notices and orders on the assessee; Rule 64 of the Telangana VAT Rules 64. Mode of Service of orders and notices (1) Unless otherwise provided in the Act, or these Rules, a notice or other document required or authorized under the Act or these Rules to be served shall be considered as sufficiently served,- (a) on a person being an individual other than in a representative capacity if,- (i) it is personally served on that person ; or (ii) it is left at the person s usual or last known place of residence or office or business in the State; or (iii) it is sent by registered post to such place of residence, office or business, or to the person s usual or last known address in the State; or (b) on any other person if,- (i) it is personally served on the nominated person ; or (ii) it is left at the registered office of the person or the person s address for service of notices under the Act; or (iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State; (iv) where it is returned unserved, if it is put on board in the office of local chamber of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 32 of impugned High Court judgment 11. The impugned order also held that the revenue did not have record evidencing the service of assessment order on the assessee for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 by any of the modes prescribed under Rule 64(1)(b). It was noted that Section 42 of the VAT Act mandates an assessee to maintain the record minimum for a period of six years from the end of the year, however, the revenue in whom the power of revision is vested, claimed that the record was not traceable even though it had only been 10 years since the relevant period. It was held that if such statement were to be accepted, it was not clear on what basis revised notices in Form IV and V were issued on 07.03.2015 as well as notice of attachment in Form V dated 20.02.2018 under the RR Act, claiming arrears of tax from the assessee for the above said period. Noting that nothing prevented the revenue from issuing certified copies of the orders pursuant to the request made by the assessee on 18.06.2018 (just about four months after revised Form V notice was issued on 20.02.2018), the assessee s stance is justified. 12. On the basis of this reasoning, the impugned judgment was delivered. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e RR Act and attached the assessee s properties. Therefore, the findings in the impugned order were justified and in accordance with law. Analysis and conclusions 15. The High Court s reasoning is based entirely on the effect of Rule 64 of the rules. There can be no doubt that when any statutory or administrative order, visits a citizen or entity with adverse consequences, such an order has to be served upon the concerned person; especially so, when that order is appealable or subject to revision by higher authorities. That is the substance of the requirement under Rule 64. The High Court, in the present case, drew a distinction between two periods; for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 it was held that the assessments could not be called in question. So far as AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were concerned, the court held that the attachment orders were invalid, since the assessment orders were not served. 16. The findings of the High Court, on the facts would not normally have required a second look by this court; however, the peculiar circumstances of this case compel scrutiny. After the disposal of the writ petition filed by the assessee (on 15.04.2010) concededly, it made no attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ors. v. Gopinath Deb Ors. [1999] 2 SCR 1189: (1999) 4 SCC 396 similarly, the court observed as follows: As already noted the appellants sought for review or recall of the order from the O.E.A. Collector solely by alleging that the notice which was required to be published in the locality before settling the land in favour of the respondent No. 1 was not served in accordance with the manner prescribed by law. The appellants did not plead 'nonservice of the notice' but raised objection only with regard to 'the manner of service of the notice'. The High court had called for and perused the record of the O.E.A. Collector and noted that the notice was issued on 15.12.1963 inviting public objection. The notice was available on record but some of its pages were missing. The O.E.A. Collector had noted in his order dated 23.2.1966 as under :- It is only due to missing of some pages of the proclamation including the last page over which the report of the process server was there, a scope was available to the objectors to file this petition. Under the above circumstances, it is not necessary to issue another proclamation and entertain further objection since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
