2020 (7) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 2nd respondent. 3. The 1st respondent issued Pre-Assessment show-cause notice dt.16.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 proposing to impose tax of Rs. 81,33,422/- under the above Act on the purchases made by the petitioner during the said Assessment Year on Electrical Goods (Electrical Motors And Oil Engines) from registered dealers in their States against 'C' Forms for the purpose of utilizing the same as primary inputs imperative for the petitioners manufacturing process. 4. The said show-cause notice was served on the petitioner one year later on 20.03.2020 and time of only seven (07) days was granted to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 8,13,34,222/-.   9. In the said proceedings, the 1st respondent admitted that he had received the adjournment e-mail dt.24.03.2020 sent by the petitioner and stated that it was not noticed by him. He also admitted that when contacted over phone, the petitioner's authorized representative had informed about the petitioners inability to file a reply due to the lockdown. 10. The petitioner therefore contends that knowing fully well the impossibility on it's part to file objections / reply to the pre-Assessment show-cause notice, the 1st respondent had passed the impugned assessment order and the rectification order and that there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice. 11. He also contended that the Assessin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....19 served on 20.3.2020, within the period of seven (07) days. The 1st respondent ought not to have denied the petitioner reasonable time to file objections to the show-cause notice and also a personal hearing since the same was specifically sought by the petitioner in the e-mail dt.24.03.2020. 15. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute that in the decisions quoted by the counsel for petitioner, it was held that the Assessing Authority cannot deny opportunity of personal hearing when such a specific request was made by the dealer and that denial of such an opportunity would vitiate the order passed by the 1st respondent. The Government Pleader, on instructions also stated that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded....