2020 (8) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....'). 3. Another company by name M/s.Mallemala Agro Pvt. Ltd. (for short, 'MAPL') was a dealer in poultry and by-products. 4. M/s. MAPL commenced its business in the year 2015 and obtained registration under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 from the 1st respondent and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 5. Pursuant to an order dt.03.05.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Hyderabad, MAPL was amalgamated with MEPL w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 6. According to the petitioner, MAPL did not have any turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act and filed 'Nil' returns from June, 2015 to March, 2016 with nil turnover, but in respect of VAT returns it reported a turnover of Rs. 23,51,62,401/-. According to poetitioner, there was no tax l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was no service of show-cause notice in the first instance on the assessee MAPL or on MEPL, and that the impugned assessment order did not even mention the date of the alleged show-cause notice or the date of it's service on MAPL. 11. It is contended that though the petitioner filed an e-mail reply on 26.11.2019 to the reminder notice dt.18.11.2019 issued by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent observed in the impugned order that no objections were filed; and that the final notice said to have been issued on 06.03.2020 by the 1st respondent was also not received by the petitioner. 12. Apart from these contentions, it is alleged that the assessment is barred by time for the period up to February, 2016 under Sub-Rule (5- A) of Rule 14-A ....