Partly allowed

Lakshmi Pujitha Granites v. the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023WP/32495/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an ex-parte Central Sales Tax assessment order for Assessment Year 2015-16, having found the show-cause notice was not issued. The court directed the authorities to proceed afresh. Implementation of a demand notice for AY 2014-15 was suspended regarding the quashed demand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed. Authorities to proceed afresh with AY 2015-16. Demand notice for AY 2014-15 not to be implemented in relation to the quashed demand.

Lakshmi Pujitha Granites Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.32495 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri P.Girish Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing through virtual mode assisted by Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial

¶5

Tax appearing for the respondents.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶7

of India has been filed for the following relief:-

¶8

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction: a) declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in resorting to coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged arrears basing on the alleged assessment order without considering the objection/s of the petitioner that it is void and nonest under law as arbitrary unjustified without jurisdiction and violative of Principles of natural Justice, b) declaring the Exparte Assessment Proceedings, dated 24.12.2019 for the tax period 2015-16, passed by the 3rd Respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, without serving Notices and without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as arbitrary, contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, void under law and c) consequently, set aside the assessment order AO 185438 dt. 24.12.2019 and to pass."

¶9

This petition was filed challenging the impugned

¶10

order on the ground that there is violation of the principle

¶11

¶12

of natural justice in as much as though the order records that the show cause notice was served but infact it was not so served.

¶13

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it mentions that the notice was issued but the date of the notice was also not mentioned.

¶14

On 19.12.2023 this Court passed the following order:

¶15

"While challenging the impugned order of assessment dated 24.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.3, the Commercial Tax Officer (Now the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Addanki, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh, pertaining to the Assessment year 2015-16, Sri P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Harshitha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing and serving any show cause notice. He submits that the petitioner acquired the knowledge of the said order only on service of the demand notice dated 30.06.2023 and after making enquiry thereafter from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶16

2. Prima facie, from perusal of the impugned order, at page No.42, it transpires that it does not mention the date of the show cause notice and also as to when it was served on the petitioner. The order mentions that “the show cause notice was issued to the dealers, but the dealers have neither responded nor filed the statutory forms required for granting concessional rate of tax along with documentary proof..... without disclosing the relevant dates.

¶17

¶18

3. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax for the respondents prays time to obtain instructions and also to produce the original record.

¶19

4. List on 22.12.2023.

¶20

5. Till then no coercive action will be taken pursuant to the notice dated 28.11.2023 issued to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act."

¶21

Pursuant to the order, the record has been produced

¶22

before us by Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Government Pleader. He submits that the show-cause notice was not issued as per the records and instructions received.

¶23

In view of the above, the impugned order was passed without issuing show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing.

¶24

It is submitted that the demand notice issued to the petitioner is for the amount, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

¶25

The impugned order pertains to the Assessment year 2015-16 only.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid consideration, the impugned order is quashed. It is, however open to the respondents to proceed afresh with respect to the assessment year 2015-

¶27

¶28

16, in accordance with law and with due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders.

¶29

So far the demand notice is concerned, it will not be implemented with respect to the demand for the assessment year 2015-16, as the impugned order has been quashed. But the authority shall proceed to implement the demand notice with respect to the Assessment year 201415, only, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed in part with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶33

pending, shall also stand dismissed.

¶34

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶35

__________________ HARINATH.N , J

Date: 22.12.2023 AG

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO.32495 of 2023

¶41

Date: 22.12.2023

¶42

Lakshmi Pujitha Granites v. the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Pujitha Granites v. the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cebtrak Bank of India Vs the State of Ap

M/s. Febin Marine Foods (a partnership firm) Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Noor Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Noor Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax