TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>VAT assessment order for April-October 2009 barred by limitation despite proper notice service under Rule 64(b)</h1> The AP HC examined non-service of notice under Rule 64(b) of AP VAT Rules and limitation under Section 21(4) of AP VAT Act. The court held that notice was ... Non-service of notice as required under Rule 64(b) of AP VAT Rules - HELD THAT:- Under Rule 64(b) of the AP VAT Rules, notice is considered to have been served if (i) it is personally served on the nominated person; (ii) if it is left at the registered office of the person or the person's address for service of notices under the AP VAT Act; (iii) it is left at or sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person in the State or (iv) where it is returned un-served, if it is put on board in the office of the local chamber of commerce or traders association. A perusal of the impugned assessment order makes it clear that show cause notice was issued in Form VAT 305A, dated 31-10-2013 inviting written objections, if any against the proposed assessment and was served on the petitioner under Rule 64(b) of the Rules - the contention of the petitioner that notice as required under Rule 64(b) of the Rules is not served is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. Thus, the impugned order insofar as it relates to the period from April 2009 to October, 2009 is barred by limitation under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT Act and accordingly the same is set aside - petition allowed. Issues:1. Impugning assessment order for tax periods 2009-10 to 2013-14.2. Impugning penalty order related to tax periods 2009-10 to 2013-14.3. Service of show cause notice under Rule 64(b) of the AP VAT Rules.4. Assessment order validity for the period from April 2009 to October 2009 under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Impugning assessment order for tax periods 2009-10 to 2013-14The petitioner, a registered dealer under the AP VAT Act, challenged the assessment order disallowing input tax credit due to failure to produce books of accounts. The petitioner argued that only output tax can be demanded if input tax is disallowed. The petitioner contended that the assessment order lacked a show cause notice in Form 305A as required by the rules. The High Court examined the service of the notice and found it validly served, rejecting the petitioner's contention. The Court emphasized that notice sent to the petitioner's address sufficed under Rule 64(b) of the Rules.Issue 2: Impugning penalty order related to tax periods 2009-10 to 2013-14The penalty order imposed by the assessing authority was challenged along with the assessment order. The petitioner argued that since the assessment order was invalid for the period from April 2009 to October 2009 due to limitation under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT Act, the penalty order should also be set aside. The Court agreed with the petitioner, setting aside both the assessment and penalty orders for the period in question. The assessing authority was given the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for the subsequent period from November 2009 onwards.Issue 3: Service of show cause notice under Rule 64(b) of the AP VAT RulesThe petitioner contended that the show cause notice was not served as required under Rule 64(b) of the Rules. However, the Court found that the notice was properly served as per the provisions of Rule 64(b), emphasizing that sending the notice to the petitioner's address was sufficient compliance with the rule.Issue 4: Assessment order validity for the period from April 2009 to October 2009 under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT ActThe petitioner argued that the assessment order for the period from April 2009 to October 2009 was barred by limitation under Section 21(4) of the AP VAT Act. Citing a previous judgment, the Court agreed with the petitioner's contention and set aside the assessment order for that period, allowing the assessing authority to initiate fresh proceedings for the subsequent period.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment and penalty orders for the period from April 2009 to October 2009, while granting the assessing authority the opportunity to conduct fresh proceedings for the subsequent period from November 2009 onwards.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
