TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....timating the turnover at 100 per cent of the works contract turnover, the gross and net turnover was fixed at Rs. 901.78 crores and Rs. 766.51 crores, respectively, and tax thereon, for a sum exceeding Rs. 95.81 crores, was proposed to be levied. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished information. The Assistant Commissioner, vide proceedings dated January 6, 2009, informed the petitioner that the proposal to make a best judgment assessment, and determination of turnover on estimated basis, was being dropped and that he proposed to levy tax on the turnover of Rs. 815.52 crores in addition to the turnover relating to the civil works contract of Rs. 443.92 crores. In their explanation, the petitioner informed the Assistant Commissioner that the turnover Rs. 815.52 crores was not amenable to tax under the provisions of the A.P. VAT Act. The Assistant Commissioner passed an assessment order dated January 31, 2009, which was served on the petitioner on February 5, 2009, levying tax both on the turnover of Rs. 815.52 crores, and inter-State purchases of material used in works contract for Rs. 76.69 crores. The profit element on labour charges for Rs. 4.53 crores was also disallowed. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to the respondent, it was decided to reject the returns and propose an estimate to the best of judgment, under section 21(3) of the APVAT Act read with rule 25(5) of the APVAT Rules, that a show-cause notice was issued on October 20, 2008 proposing a turnover of Rs. 824.12 crores, that, on receipt of the notice, the petitioner had filed details of the works executed in respect of the three projects up to September, 2008 with gross receipts of Rs. 450.88 crores relating to civil works, that in addition to the material purchased within the State, the petitioner had also purchased goods from outside the State and had supplied the same to APGENCO for use in the three projects, that the respondent had issued notice on November 5, 2008 calling upon them to furnish details of the goods purchased from outside the State and supplied to the contractee for executing the three projects, that, as no reply was received from the petitioner, a revised show-cause notice dated December 6, 2008 was issued proposing to levy tax on a turnover of Rs. 450.88 crores and, in addition, an equivalent sum was estimated and proposed as turnover relating to supply of goods, that the petitioner had filed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the petitioner had been put on notice that these turnovers were liable to tax and that nothing precluded them from producing evidence, during the personal hearing, to establish that these turnovers could not be brought to tax under the A.P. VAT Act. While denying that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of effectively putting forward their defence, or that the assessment order was in violation of principles of natural justice, learned counsel would submit that the show-cause notice dated December 6, 2008, and the revised show-cause notice dated January 6, 2009, were issued, that an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner on January 12, 2009, that they had filed their objections on December 31, 2008 and January 12, 2009 and that it could not be said that they were not put on notice of these turnovers being assessed to tax under the A.P. VAT Act. The learned counsel would contend that the statutory remedy of an appeal could not have been by passed and that no case had been made out to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the decision. (Judicial Review of Administrative Action: 5th Edn: De Dmith, Woolf & Jowell) It is essential to state the particulars to enable the person to answer the case against him. A notice which does not mention the particulars, on which the case against the person is based, cannot provide a foundation for the proceedings that follow. (Nasir Ahmad v. Asstt. Custodian General, Evacuee Property AIR 1980 SC 1157; [1980] 3 SCC 1). The show-cause notice which preceded the impugned assessment order makes no mention of the grounds or the basis on which the turnover of Rs. 815.52 crores, among others, is proposed to be taxed under the A.P. VAT Act. The petitioner-assessee has, thereby, been denied the opportunity of effectively showing cause why such turnover is not liable to tax under the A.P. VAT Act. The show-cause notices, in the present case, violate the audi alteram partem rule. This question can be examined from another angle also. It is only if the proposed turnover is liable to tax under the A.P. VAT Act, would the respondent have jurisdiction to pass the assessment order levying tax under the A.P. VAT Act. The fact or facts upon which the jurisdiction of an auth....