2018 (1) TMI 28 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants petitioner another chance to address tax assessment issues, stresses compliance with procedural requirements.

Variety Iron Mart & Industrials Versus Commercial Tax Officer

The court allowed the writ petitions challenging assessment and penalty orders under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Despite procedural ... Principles of Natural Justice - the petitioner appears to have misplaced both the orders and thereafter obtained certified copies of the same and came up with the above writ petitions - Held that: - In view of the admitted position that SCN was served on the petitioner and that even the orders of assessment were served on the petitioner, the case cannot strictly come under the category of denial of reasonable opportunity. But at the same time, it is seen from the order of assessment that when an audit was conducted, the petitioner had cooperated - the petitioner can be given one opportunity, despite their own follies - petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to assessment and penalty orders under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.Analysis:The judgment pertains to writ petitions filed by a dealer challenging an order of assessment followed by an order of penalty under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The court noted that the show cause notice was duly served on the petitioner, and despite not filing objections, the assessment and penalty orders were passed. The petitioner failed to take appropriate legal recourse by either filing a writ petition or statutory appeals against the orders, leading to a delay in challenging the impugned orders.The court acknowledged that the petitioner cooperated during an audit, which was a positive aspect in the case. Despite the procedural lapses on the part of the petitioner, the court decided to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to rectify the situation. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The petitioner was directed to file objections to the show cause notice by a specified date, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to schedule a personal hearing promptly. The court emphasized that the petitioner must appear for the hearing to avoid forfeiting the opportunity. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass fresh orders based on merits and in compliance with the law.In conclusion, the court granted the petitioner another chance to address the issues raised in the show cause notice, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and adherence to procedural requirements. The judgment highlights the significance of providing a reasonable opportunity to parties involved in tax assessments while also underscoring the need for timely and appropriate legal actions to challenge adverse decisions.