M/s. Svn Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. SVN HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD.,, 8/12/5, PVS ESTATES, LOWER TANK BUND ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM - 535002, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHIVAKUMAR GUDISA

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, M.G. ROAD (EAST CIRCLE), VIZIANAGARAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS, declaring that the impugned ReAssessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide A.O. No. ZH3712200D27411, dated 19-12-2020, for the Tax Periods October, 2013 to June, 2016, u/S. 21(6) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, is barred by limitation

¶16

2

¶17

RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.1417 of 2021

¶18

prescribed by S. 21(6) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, was passed on mere change of opinion without any fresh material de hors the Assessment Record, apart from being contrary to law even on merits, and is therefore without authority or jurisdiction, contrary to law even on merits, and illegal and consequently set aside the same and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including collection of the disputed tax, pursuant to the impugned Re-Assessment Order passed by the First Respondent vide ZH3712200D27411, dated 19-12-2020, for the Tax Periods October, 2013 to June, 2016, u/S. 21(6) of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.G NARENDRA CHETTY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶25

3

¶26

RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.1417 of 2021

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

Heard Sri G. Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner, who is registered under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”), had been served with an order of assessment, dated 24.08.2016, for the period October 2013 to June, 2016. Thereafter, an order of re-assessment came to be passed on 19.12.2020.

¶30

This order of re-assessment, dated 19.12.2020, passed by the 1^st respondent, came to be challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶31

The petitioner raised various grounds of challenge, including the ground that the impugned re-assessment order has been passed beyond the period of limitation.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to Section 21 (6) of the Act, which reads as follows:

¶33

“(6) The authority prescribed may reassess, where an assessment was already made under sub-sections (1) to (5) and such assessment understates the correct tax liability of the dealer, within a period of four years from the date of such assessment.”

¶34

4

¶35

RRR, J & JS, J W.P.No.1417 of 2021

¶36

This provision requires the order of re-assessment to be passed within a period of 4 years from the date of the original assessment. Since the date of original assessment was on 24.08.2016, the period of 4 years would end by 23.08.2020. However, the order of re-assessment came to be passed on 19.12.2020, which is beyond the 4 year period prescribed under Section 21 (6) of the Act.

¶37

The respondents, in their counter affidavits, took the stand that the period stipulated under Section 21 (6) would stand extended on account of Covid pandemic as in the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020 and 10.01.2022 in M.A.No.21 of 2022 in M.A.No.665 of 2021 in Suo Moto W.P(C).No.3 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that the period between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021 would be excluded for the purposes of calculation of limitation.

¶38

The question of whether such extent of limitation would be applicable to the Assessing Authority had come up before a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.12529 of 2024. The Division Bench, after considering the various Judgments, relating to this issue, had held that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply only to the litigants, who are seeking to approach the appropriate Courts and such extension of limitation would not be available to an authority acting under any statute.

¶39