Monthly tax limitation applies period-wise, natural justice requires only reasonable opportunity, and factual findings resist writ interference absent perversity.

In a monthly tax regime, limitation for best-judgment assessment must be computed period-wise from the due date of each monthly return, so earlier monthly periods may become time-barred even if the assessment order is passed later. A show cause notice followed by a reasonable opportunity to respond was treated as sufficient compliance with natural justice, and the authority was not required to await a reply beyond the stipulated time. Writ jurisdiction remains supervisory, so factual findings of the appellate authority will not be disturbed absent perversity or reliable material showing error. The assessment was therefore liable to be interfered with only to the extent of the time-barred period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment was barred by limitation for the relevant tax period; (ii) whether the assessment was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) whether the factual findings of the appellate authority warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the assessment was barred by limitation for the relevant tax period.

Analysis: The tax period under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 remained a calendar month, as no different period had been prescribed. Returns for each month were required to be filed within 20 days after the end of the tax period under the Rules. On that basis, the limitation under Section 21(3) had to be computed from the due date of the return for each monthly period. As the assessment order was dated 17.02.2014, the assessment could not survive for the earlier monthly periods that had already crossed the statutory four-year limit.

Conclusion: The assessment was barred by limitation only for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 and was liable to be set aside to that extent.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner was served with a show cause notice and was granted one week to respond. The notice period was treated as a reasonable opportunity in the light of the Commissioner's circular substituting the earlier requirement of multiple opportunities with a requirement of reasonable opportunity. The record did not establish that the petitioner's representation was filed before the assessment order was passed, and the authority was not bound to await a reply after the stipulated period expired.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of principles of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the factual findings of the appellate authority warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. The appellate authority found that no reliable documentary material supported the claim regarding loss of teakwood logs or the quantified value claimed, and that finding was not shown to be perverse. Reappreciation of evidence was therefore impermissible.

Conclusion: No interference with the factual findings was called for.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was interfered with only to the limited extent of the time-barred monthly period, while the remaining challenge failed and the order was otherwise sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a monthly tax regime, limitation for best-judgment assessment must be applied period-wise from the due date of each monthly return, and writ interference with concurrent factual findings is unavailable absent perversity.

---