TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uction of the 48" diameter pipeline for transportation of natural gas by M/s. Reliance Gas Transport Infrastructure Limited from Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh to Bharuch in Gujarat, to construct associated facilities like dispatch compressor stations, intermediate compressor stations, main line valve stations and tap of stations. The petitioner got itself registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 on the rolls of the second respondent with effect from October 1, 2006. The first respondent took up the audit of the assessment of the petitioner as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad and passed "notice of assessment of value added tax" in form VAT 305 dated August 18, 2009 for the tax period 2006-07 and 2007-08, separately. These orders were served on the petitioner on August 31, 2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad on September 30, 2009 contending that the first respondent did not have authorization from the Deputy Commissioner for making assessment but was having authorization only for conducting audit apart. It also raised other objections on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty Commissioner for making assessment on the petitioner on August 6, 2012 and issued separate show-cause notices dated August 17, 2012 for 2006-07 and 2007-08, respectively to the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner cannot be assessed on the same turnovers for which it was assessed in the earlier assessment order. The petitioner submitted a reply dated August 30, 2012 to the first respondent contending that the proposed assessment was barred by limitation prescribed by section 21(3) of the Act and sought withdrawal of the notice apart from refund of 50 per cent of the disputed tax deposited by the petitioner. The first respondent issued a notice dated September 5, 2012 asking the petitioner to also submit its objections on the merits and that the objections regarding the limitation will also be examined along with its objections on the merits. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted another reply dated September 18, 2012, submitting its objections on the merits also apart from limitation. Thereafter, the impugned assessment orders dated October 17, 2012 have been passed by the first respondent once again assessing the petitioner on the same turnovers for the tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... limitation prescribed under section 21(3) of the Act which applies to the original assessment. We have considered the respective submissions of the parties. Section 21 of the Act states as follows: "21. Assessments.-(1) Where a VAT dealer or TOT dealer fails to file a return in respect of any tax period within the prescribed time, the authority prescribed shall assess the dealer for the said period for such default in the manner prescribed. (2) If a VAT dealer or TOT dealer submits a return along with evidence for full payment of tax, subsequent to the prescribed time the assessment made under sub-section (1) shall be withdrawn without prejudice to any interest or penalty leviable. (3) Where the authority prescribed is not satisfied with a return filed by the VAT dealer or TOT dealer or the return appears to be incorrect or incomplete, he shall assess to the best of his judgment within four years of due date of the return or within four years of the date of filing of the return whichever is later. (4) The authority prescribed may, based on any information available or on any other basis, conduct a detailed scrutiny of the accounts of any VAT dealer or TOT dealer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibiting the authority concerned to pass consequential orders, the period of three years shall get extended by the period during which such stay orders were in force: Provided further that if the subsequent appeal results in modification of such appeal, order or order of any court which is subjected to further appeal, either partially or wholly, the period of three years shall be computed from the date of receipt of subsequent order of appeal but not from the date of receipt of the original appeal, order or order of any court which was subjected to further appeal." In this case, for both the tax periods 2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner was assessed to tax by orders dated August 18, 2009 by the second respondent pursuant to an authorization for audit issued to the second respondent. These assessment orders dated August 18, 2009 of the second respondent were set aside by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, by orders dated June 13, 2011 on the basis of the decision of this court in Sri Balaji Flour Mills [2011] 40 VST 150 (AP); 52 APSTJ 85 and it was held that the second respondent had passed the orders of assessment without permission from the highe....