9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Eight Only) for the assessment year 2015-2016 and filed F Forms for obtaining such exemption. However, it was found that a turn-over to an extent of Rs.2,05,37,776/- (Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only) was not covered by any F Forms. In view of this shortfall, the Assessing Officer added the turn-over of Rs.2,05,37,776/- (Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only) to the taxable turn-over and raised a demand of Rs.1,77,83,641/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty One Only), by way of an assessment order dated 28.12.2019. This order is said to have been sent to the e-mail ID of the petitioner. 2. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alternative remedy, approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the concerned F Forms relating to the disputed turn-over had been misplaced and could not be placed before the Assessing Officer in time. It is further contended that the lacunae or the defect in non-furnishing the F Forms can always be rectified by producing them before the Appellate Authority at the stage of the First Appeal or before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at the stage of the Second Appeal and the same is permitted by virtue of the Judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules which had been amended in 2016 to include service through e-mail as a valid and effective mode of service. He would submit that, in such circumstances, the aforesaid Judgments would not be applicable in view of the change in law. 8. A perusal of the facts would show that the period within which assessment for the year 2015-2016 would have been carried out ended on 31.03.2020. The assessment order is said to have been passed on 29.12.2019 and served through e-mail in June, 2020. The petitioner contends that the service of the order by e-mail is not proper service and in any event cannot be taken to have been served on the petitioner as the officer of the petitioner who was handling the e-mail ID had left the service of the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.03.2020. The petitioner, which is a large Multi-National Company, cannot plead ignorance of the law or that the petitioner is awaiting an order despite the fact that the period for completing assessment had lapsed. Further, the contention, that the petitioner was under the impression that no demand was raised against the petitioner, cannot be accepted as such a conclusion could have been drawn only if an assessment order had been passed and served on the petitioner. The fact that the first step taken by the petitioner for the purpose of filing was only in June, 2022 when an application was made for a certified copy of the assessment order also militates against the version set up by the petitioner. 12. The arguments that the service of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
