2018 (12) TMI 1695 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside assessment order under APVAT Act, 2005, due to lack of natural justice.

M/s. K.P. Ranga Reddy Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (INT), Anantapuram and others

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the assessment order under the APVAT Act, 2005, due to a breach of natural justice principles. ... Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner did not reply to SCN but filed Form 501 certificates - impugned order challenged by petitioner after 20 months - HELD THAT:- The postal acknowledgment card contains the signature of someone else and in the light of the averments made in the affidavit, the objection to the belated filing of the writ petition, need not be put against the petitioner. There was no communication after filing of the 501 certificates either to the petitioner or to his authorized representative - petitioner deserves one more opportunity. Matter remanded back for re-hearing - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge of assessment order under APVAT Act, 2005 alleging violation of natural justice principles.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an assessment order under the APVAT Act, 2005, citing a violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order referred to several proceedings and communications, including a show cause notice dated 23.12.2016 to which the dealer responded seeking more time. Although the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice, they submitted Form 501 certificates through their authorized representative. However, no notice of hearing was sent before the assessment order was passed, indicating a clear breach of natural justice principles.The respondents argued that the petitioner delayed challenging the order, as the order was dated 28.02.2017 and the petitioner claimed not to have received it. The respondents produced an acknowledgment card showing delivery in March 2017, suggesting that the petitioner's delay in raising concerns after over 20 months was unjustified. The court considered these submissions carefully.Regarding the delay in approaching the court, the postal acknowledgment card bore a signature in Telugu, attributed to someone named 'A. Anjaneyulu.' The petitioner explained the delay by stating that they were away due to the father's illness, who had suffered a paralytic attack at that time. Given the circumstances and the signature discrepancy, the court did not hold the delay against the petitioner.Upon clearing the delay issue, the court noted that no independent opportunity for a personal hearing was granted during the assessment process. While the petitioner responded to the show cause notice and submitted Form 501 certificates through the authorized representative, there was no further communication or hearing provided. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the respondents. The petitioner was directed to file objections by a specified date, following which a personal hearing would be scheduled before fresh orders were issued. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be dismissed, and no costs were awarded.