Remanded

Dish Tv India Ltd., ( a Company Registered under the v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC11 Feb 2010WP/1750/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside a tax assessment order on the ground of violation of natural justice due to improper service of notice under AP VAT Rules, remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order set aside; matter remanded with direction to Assessing Authority to give notice and opportunity of personal hearing before passing fresh order.

Dish Tv India Ltd., ( a Company… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2010

¶3

Dated: 11-2-2010

¶4

Between: Dish TV India Limited, rep. by Mr.Jagdish P.Rathi and State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

…Respondents.

¶7

Order: (Per RR, J)

¶8

The order under challenge in this writ petition is the assessment order dated 31-12-2009 whereby the petitioner was assessed to tax of Rs.1,72,23,552-00 under the AP VAT Act, 2005 on the sale of recharge coupons during the period March, 2008 to September, 2009.

¶9

While several contentions are raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would suffice to note that the order under challenge is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice since notice of hearing was not served on the authorised representative of the petitioner as required under Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules, 2005.

¶10

Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that Rule 64 (1) (b) prescribes the mode of service of orders or notices, these Rules provide that a notice or other document, required or authorised under the Act or the Rules to be served, shall be considered as sufficiently served on any other person if it is personally served on the nominated person; or it is left at the registered office of the person or the person’s address for service of notices under the Act or it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that as the notice was sent to the petitioner’s godown it did not amount to due service under Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules.

¶11

On the other hand Sri P.Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would contend that the mode of service in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 64 (1)(b) are in the alternative and it is open to the

¶12

Assessing Authority to choose one of the modes of service prescribed therein. Learned Special Standing Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the Assessing Authority was, however, ready and willing to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and pass an assessment order afresh after putting him on notice and giving an opportunity of being heard. In view of this submission, we consider it wholly unnecessary to examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner including the interpretation of Rules 63 and 64 of the AP VAT Rules, 2005.

¶13

The impugned order of assessment is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority who shall put the petitioner on notice, give them an opportunity of personal hearing, and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶15

___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶16

_______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶17

11^th February, 2010. GRR

Dish Tv India Ltd., ( a Company Registered under the v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dish Tv India Ltd., ( a Company Registered under the v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Cheeti Rama Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mempally mahender Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Addepalli Prathap Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Surya Chakara Sea Foods Ltd., Vs Agricultural Market Committee

Palla Eswaraiah Vs The Municipal Commissioner

M/s. Kranthi Constructions, a registered PArtnership firm Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by its Secretary