2016 (6) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Writ Petitions is the assessment order in Form VAT 305 dated 01.02.2016, and the consequential order of penalty under Rule 25(5) of the A.P. VAT Rules dated 08.03.2016. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner established a manufacturing unit at Gaganpahad, Rajendarnagar Mandal in 1991 and shifted the same to Katedan in Rajendarnagar Mandal in the year 2012. The third respondent had earlier sanctioned sales tax deferment under the Target Scheme, 2000 for Rs. 66,69,390/- for the period from 01.12.1999 to 30.11.2013 (14 years), repayable from the years 2013-14 to 2027-28 vide proceedings dated 04.08.2000, and a final eligibility certificate was issued by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 19.08.2000. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Industries Department, the impugned assessment order and the consequential penalty order was passed. Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that, despite repeated reminders, no response was forthcoming from the Industries Department; as the assessment period was likely to be barred by limitation, the assessing authority had no other alternative but to pass impugned assessment order; and as the petitioner had violated Rule 25(5) of the A.P. VAT Rules the consequential order of penalty was passed. As no information was forthcoming from the Industries Department, and the efforts of the learned Government Pleader for Industries in securing information from them was of no avail, we had per....