Allowed

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024WP/22790/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trader challenged a CST assessment order for 2016-17 alleging no notice was served at its current address or email after its business shifted from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada. The court agreed service failed, violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Assessment order dated 21.04.2020 set aside; matter remanded to second respondent with instruction to give notice and hearing before reassessment; no costs.

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 22790 OF 2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited, Flat No. 103, 1st Floor, D.No. 175/LB, 176/2 SB Capital, Mangalagiri By-Pass Near Saibaba Temple, Vijayawada - 522 053 Krishna District Andhra Pradesh represented by its Director Smt. K. Roja Bharathi

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Commercial Tax Officer, Dwarakanagar Circle, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

Goods and Services Tax Officer, Mangalagiri Circle, Mangalgiri.

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus setting aside the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent dt.21-04-2020 passed in Asst. TIN No.37935685492/2016-17 (CST) vide A.O.No.207289 passed for

¶18

¶19

the assessment year 2016-17 (CST) as illegal, contrary to law, against the Principles of Natural Justice and without Jurisdiction.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pending disposal of the Writ Petition, to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs.81,12,025/arising in pursuance of impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent dt.21-04-2020 passed in Asst. TIN No.37935685492/2016-17 (CST) vide A.O.No.207289 passed for the assessment year 2016-17 (CST).

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. S KRISHNA MURTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶24

The Court made the following; ORDER

APHC010343192020

Bi?'—■It?.!:m:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[3508]

¶30

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 22790/2020

¶33

Between:

¶34

M/s.tamogna Enterprises Private Limited ...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

Commercial Tax Officer and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

1.S KRISHNA MURTHY

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1 .GP FOR COMMERCIALTAX

¶41

The Court made the following Order:

¶42

The petitioner, which was registered under the AP VAT^Act,has its registered office at Hyderabad. The petitioner had a branch office at Visakhapatnam. This branch office was shifted to Vijayawada^inSeptember, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner had informed the 1®*^{respondentaboutthe} change of place and the 1®' respondent had issued an^{amendedregistration} certificate in Form GST REG-06, dated 04.10.2019. In the amended registration certificate, the address at Vijayawada^{wasshownastheprincipal}

¶43

¶44

¶45

nd After the shifting of the branch office to Vijayawada,^the2 place of business, respondent became the jurisdictional assessing authority^{andallthefileswere} nd shifted to the 2 respondent. After transfer of the files, the 2"“' respondent certificate, dated 26.09.2020, incorporating issued a fresh registration Vijayawada address of the petitioner is the principal^{placeofbusiness.}

¶46

The petitioner, was subsequently informed that the^{petitionerhad} fallen in arrears of tax, to a tune of Rs.81,12,025/-,^{fortheassessmentyear} 2016-17 under the CST Act, 1956. Having come to know of these^arrears,the to know that an assessment order dated petitioner made enquiries and came 21.04.2020 had been passed against the petitioner.

¶47

The petitioner assails the said assessment order dated 21.04.2020 passed in Assessment TIN No.37935685492/2016-17^(CST)vide A.O.No.207289 on the ground that no show cause notice^{ornoticeofany} nature was received by the petitioner before the assessment order^hadbeen passed.

¶48

The 1®' respondent has produced a show cause notice^dated 08.03.2020 which is said to have been sent to the Visakhapatnam^addressof the branch office of the petitioner. It is also stated^{thatareplyshowcause} 09.03.2020 to the E.mail I.D of the petitioner, which notice was also sent on was [email protected]. 5. The petitioner contends that as on 26.02.2020, the^{principalplace} of business of the petitioner had shifted to Vijayawada with the^addressof branch of Vijayawada being available in the records^{oftherespondentsand}

e— A

that the E.mail I.D of the petitioner had also been changed to [email protected]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of these changed addresses, the^{serviceofshowcause} notice on the petitioner at the erstwhile branch office at Visakhapatnam and to the E.mail I.D which was not being used by the petitioner^{wouldnotamountto} service of notice.

¶53

In view of these admitted facts, this Court would have to hold that the impugned assessment order has been passed without prior notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner, the same would amount^to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶54

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Assessment TIN No.37935685492/2016-17 (CST) vide A.O.No.207289, passed by the 1®* respondent, and remanding^the matter back to the 2"'^ respondent, who is the present jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the 2^"^ respondent shall give notice to the petitioner and pass orders after opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

As sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand^{closed.Thereshall} be no order as to costs. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA

¶56

To,

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

Commercial Tax Officer, Dwarakanagar Circle. Visakhapatnam.

¶59

Goods and Services Tax Officer, Mangalagiri Circle, Mangalgiri.

¶60

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (CT) Department Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶61

One CC to Sri. S Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] Tax .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶62

THREE CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22790 of 2020

S’ 0 9 DEC 2029 i
O &
Current Section
^ ^SPATcy^t^

¶69

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer

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

V.Krishna Murthy, Vs Mr.B.Raja Sekhar

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N v Varshit Goud Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Skr Enterprises Vs State of Ap

M/s. Sapthagiri Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes Dept)

M/s. Sapthagiri Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner(State Taxes Dept)