9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents. 3. In both the cases, the petitioners are proprietary concerns, which are carrying on the business of granite cutting and polishing and sale of such finished granite products. The establishments of both the petitioners were inspected in the year 2015 by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Anantapur, as part of a general drive carried out against 77 such units in Tadipatri area. 4. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, after inspection of the premises, had come to the conclusion that there is a variation of 317.64 Cubic meters of granite in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 and 73.250 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. No. 1669 of 2025, sought payment of Rs. 15,24,424/- in relation to the balance tax payable for the period 04/2015 to 03/2016. This amount is split into two parts i.e. Rs. 7,25,397/- and Rs. 7,99,027/-. Similarly, the demand notice dated 02.01.2025, in relation to the petitioner in W.P. No. 1666 of 2025, sought payment of Rs. 1,67,283/- and Rs. 1,91,183/-, aggregating to Rs.3,58,466/-, for the period 04/2015 to 03/2016. 8. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders of assessment dated 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 and appellate orders, dated 09.02.2021, in W.P.No.1669 of 2025 and in W.P. No. 1666 of 2025 respectively. 9. Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the outbreak of Covid-19 and that the benefit of extension of limitation given in relation to this period would have to be given to the petitioners, cannot be accepted. The orders of assessment were passed on 16.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 and served on the petitioners. The maximum period within which the appeals could have been filed and the further period, which can be condoned by the Appellate Authority, had expired even before the Covid outbreak in March 2020. As such, the order of the Appellate Authority also cannot be faulted. 12. Further, the petitioners, who were aware of the order of dismissal of the appeals, dated 09.02.2021, have chosen to remain silent for the next four years and approached this Court only after the notices of dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
