2020 (8) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1956 and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. 3. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of PVC rexin cloth, cellular sheets, PVC Film, etc. 4. For the assessment year 2012-13, the 1st respondent finally assessed the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax on 31.03.2016 levying tax on inter-State sales on rexin cloth, Tarpauline cloth and PVC cloth under Section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Entry-86 in the IV Schedule of the Telangana VAT, 2005, rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the above products should be classified as "cotton connected fabrics/ man-made fabrics" covered by G.O.Ms.No.2328, Revenue Department dt.13.12.1957. 5. Subsequently, by separate proceedings dt.07.09.2016,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent was of the opinion that the rexin cloth is taxable at 5% since it is specifically mentioned in Entry-86 of the IV Schedule to the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 and that the 2nd respondent had erred in directing the 1st respondent to allow exemption on the inter-State sales of rexin cloth. He also observed that the 2nd respondent had erred in not considering the ruling rendered by the Advance Ruling Authority in the petitioner's own case vide proceedings in ARCOM/54/2013 dt.28.01.2015 holding that rexin / PVC cloth manufactured by the petitioner would fall under Entry 86 in IV Schedule and was liable to tax at the rate of 5% and which ruling was binding on the authorities of the Department under Section 67 of the Telangana VAT Act. The 3rd re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that it operates as a 'Stay' automatically. The petitioner relied upon the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ms. RAK Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - VI, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad, and others 57 A.P.S.T.J. 53 in this regard. 14. According to the petitioner, it informed the 3rd respondent through e-mail dt.29.03.2020 in response to a hearing notice issued by the 3rd respondent that its office had been under a total closure due the lockdown declared by the Government on account of COVID-19 pandemic and it could not receive any documents or statements or information, and to postpone hearing of the matter by (15) days till restoration of normalcy, but the 3rd respondent did not e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... attending the personal hearing before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, therefore, ought to have adjourned the mater. 18. But, apparently, since the limitation was going to expire for making Revision by 30.03.2020, the impugned Assessment Order was passed by the 3rd respondent. 19. A striking feature of the impugned order is that there are no reasons contained in it and it simply stated that the Revision showcause notice dt.09.08.2019 is confirmed. There is no reference to the above decisions relied upon by the petitioner at all. 20. Sri J. Anil Kumar, learned Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for respondents, is unable to explain why the impugned revisional order passed by the 3rd respondent contains no reasons and ....