2020 (7) TMI 583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern carrying on business in iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under the Act. 3. It purchases iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap from the local dealers within the State of Telangana and effects sales of iron and steel scrap and rubber scrap to local dealers in Telangana and also out of the State of Telangana against 'C' forms. 4. For the tax period April, 2014 and March, 2016, the 2nd respondent, as authorized the Dy.Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, visited the business premises of petitioner on 04-08-2015, issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7-09-2019 simply extracting the contentions of the petitioner raised in the grounds of appeal, without discussing the same and rejected the appeal. 12. According to the petitioner, though the 1st respondent stated in the said order that final notice dt.03-04-2019 was sent to the petitioner, petitioner did not receive it. 13. Thereafter, it appears that a demand notice dt.30-12-2019 was issued by 3rd respondent demanding Rs. 1,17,04,232/- ignoring petitioner's claim that it is entitled to refund of Rs. 57,90,413/- for 2013-14, Rs. 26.00 lakhs for 2014-15 and Rs. 30.00 lakhs for 2015- 16. Thereafter the 3rd respondent also issued a garnishee notice dt.30-12-2019 to the petitioner's Banker (4th respondent) demanding Rs. 1,17,04,232/- and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd did not produce any supporting documentary evidence contradicting the findings recorded by the Audit Officer in his order dt.26-07-2017. 17. We are of the opinion that whether or not the petitioner availed the opportunity of personal hearing, it is the duty of the 1st respondent, as appellate authority, to deal with the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by petitioner and the 1st respondent could not have rejected the appeal only on the ground that personal hearing opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. 18. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 states that 1st respondent will give an opportunity to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order ....