TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (1) TMI 698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner filed monthly returns in form VAT 200 before the third respondent disclosing its contractual receipts/turnover as required under the Act. For the assessment periods April, 2009-July, 2009 and August, 2009March, 2010 such monthly returns were filed disclosing the turnovers relating to the execution of electrical works executed by it for various contractees situated in the vicinity of Hyderabad and also turnovers with regard to the inter-State sales, AMC service charges received and installations and erection charges, SEZ sales. For the period, April, 2009-July, 2009, in its returns the petitioner claimed exemption with regard to SEZ sales made by it amounting to Rs. 2,94,20,169, AMC charges coming to Rs. 76,16,954, installation and erection charges coming to Rs. 1,89,40,254 and inter-State sales of Rs. 3,60,252. It also disclosed purchases from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh as also within the State of Andhra Pradesh amounting to Rs. 15,36,14,118. The purchase of the goods used for executing the works for the SEZ units effected locally as well as from outside the State were shown separately which work out to Rs. 1,07,80,454. S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the tax period August, 2009-March, 2010, the first respondent had issued an authorization to the second respondent to conduct a VAT audit. The second respondent requested the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and in response thereto, the petitioner produced all the records for the periods 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 (up to December, 2010) and also filed a letter in the form a statement. Taking into account the said material, the second respondent passed an order dated March 28, 2011 in form VAT 312 accepting the turnover furnished by the petitioner with reference to the books of accounts, the returns filed and also the statement filed by the petitioner granting exemption with reference to inter-State sales and SEZ sales. He held that labour charges (installation and erection charges), AMC charges and high sea sales are not liable to tax under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 and confirmed the levy at four per cent, 12.5 per cent and 14.5 per cent, respectively, and also on inter-State sales. The first respondent was of the view that the orders dated October 1, 2009 and March 28, 2011, respectively passed by the second respondent with respect to the tax periods April, 2009-July, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of receipt of the said show-cause notice which was received on December 13, 2011. On January 28, 2012, the petitioner filed a letter requesting the first respondent to grant time of one month for submitting all the records in support of its claims for exemption as the records were sent to its head office at Mumbai for the purpose of statutory audit. In the said letter, the petitioner also brought to the notice of the first respondent that all the records were produced before the Assistant Commissioner (CT), the second respondent herein at the time of audit and form part of the record and stated that after verifying all the records only, the latter had passed the order in form VAT 312 stating that there were no irregularities noticed. The first respondent sent another letter dated January 5, 2012, requesting the petitioner to file its objections. The petitioner appeared in person before the first respondent and requested further time for producing the records as the same are to be received from its head office in Mumbai. Another notice dated April 19, 2012, was issued by the first respondents directing the petitioner to file its objections before May 3, 2012 and also providing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2008-09 and 2009-10, (ii) form VAT 312 dated October 1, 2009 along with the statement for the audit completed for the period from April, 2008-July, 2009 and (iii) form VAT 312 dated March 28, 2011 along with the statements for the Audit completed for the period from August, 2009-December, 2010. The petitioner also filed copy of the covering letter dated July 27, 2011 addressed by it to the first respondent which bears the seal of the office of the first respondent dated August 17, 2011 in support of its above contention. After taking note of the same, the Special Government Pleader on December 3, 2012 undertook to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondents to the averments in the above reply affidavit of the petitioner. This court on December 10, 2012 also passed an order stating that in the counter filed by him, the first respondent did not advert to the fact of the petitioner filing a letter dated July 27, 2011 on August 17, 2011 in the office of the first respondent along with the enclosures/material on the basis of which the petitioner claimed immunity from exercise of the revisional power; that it constitutes withholding of relevant facts from the court; that....