9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .11.2020 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, confirming the demand of Rs.3,25,87,464/-, for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (up to June 2017). In furtherance thereof, on 28.11.2020, A.O.No.77097 (Annexure P-10) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Audit, Begumpet Division, Hyderabad, demanding penalty of 25% on the tax demand, amounting to Rs. 81,46,866/-. 3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner challenging the A.Os issued demanding Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalty and pre-deposited an amount equivalent to 12.5% of the tax and penalty, which was increased to 50% of the demand of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that the impugned show cause notice dated 31.10.2022 came as bolt from blue to the petitioner whereby respondent No. 1 on the strength of objections raised by Auditor General - Audit, proposed raise in demand to the tune of Rs. 7,58,43,382/-. In turn, the petitioner filed detailed response on merits and also raised objections that after having entered into the OTS, it is no more open to issue show cause notice. The revised show cause notice dated 19.01.2024 was issued by respondent No. 1 revising the tax proposed to the tune of Rs. 2,46,53,240/- in lieu of previous determination of Rs. 7,58,43,382/-. 9. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that G.O. Ms. No. 45, dated 09.05.2022, (paragraph No. 5 (e) (iii)) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by the statutory scheme i.e., Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, whereas, in the instant case it was under G.O.Ms., which were issued by the State Government as policy decisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Apex Court disapproved action of respondents in asking the petitioner to pay the tax for a period, for which, under the scheme settlement was already arrived at. Stand of Revenue: 12. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State tax for respondents, raised objection about the maintainability of this petition by placing the reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 and Union of India Vs. Coastal Container Transporters A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (both supra). However, a plain reading of both the judgments makes it clear that the Supreme Court made it clear that the correctness of allegations/facts cannot be gone into by this Court at the stage of show cause notice. Interestingly, in the second judgment, on which reliance is placed by learned Special Government Pleader i.e., Coastal Container Transporters Association (supra), it was made clear that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there exists lack of jurisdiction, interference may not be made. In the instant case, as noticed above, sheet anchor of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding authority/jurisdiction to issue show cause notice after entering into OTS. Thus, both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not there. In ordinary circumstances, no doubt, the power envisaged under Section 32 can be pressed into service. However, whether this power can be exercised even after OTS is recorded, is the core issue. 19. The Apex Court in Killick Nixon Ltd., (supra) under Para 19 recorded as under: "19. As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that the order to be made by the Designated Authority under Section 90 is a considered order which is intended to be conclusive in respect of tax arrears and sums payable after such determination towards full and final settlement of tax arrears. Once the declarant makes payment of the amount so determined under Section 90, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, which was duly accepted. The most important thing is that between the date of acceptance dated 22.06.2022 and actual recording of OTS on 17.08.2022, the Audit Officer by communication dated 11.07.2022 informed the respondents about the alleged short levy of tax/penalty. Despite having full knowledge about it, the respondent entered into OTS. There is no allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice that petitioner had committed any fraud. Thus, if the respondents have entered into OTS despite knowledge of Audit Officer letter dated 11.07.2022 with eyes opened, it will be presumed that they have considered the objection and did not find worth in it for exercising powers under Section 32 of the VAT Act or otherwise. So far, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
