TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 2. The petitioner is a dealer under the Telangana VAT Act, 2005 on the rolls of the 1st respondent. 3. The petitioner contends that in the first week of March, 2020, its banker (4th respondent) received a notice from the 1st respondent directing the said banker to attach a sum of Rs. 7,86,792/- lying in the petitioner's bank account, towards dues of the petitioner under the CST Act, 1956 for the tax periods 2010-11 to 2014-15. 4. The petitioner then approached the 1st respondent and discovered that these dues pertained to the Assessment Orders allegedly passed for the said tax periods under the provisions of the CST Act. 5. The petitioner contends that the Assessment Orders were passed for the said periods on different dates, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through e-mail and records that the petitioner did not prefer to file any reply or produce books of accounts within the stipulated time. The Assessment Order is said to have been dispatched by RPAD and the postal cover bears the date stamp 09.07.2014, but it is returned with an endorsement "addressee left". 12. It is not in dispute that notices as well as orders passed are required to be served on the assessee in accordance with Rule 64(1)(b) of the TVAT Rules, which does not contemplate service of either notices or orders through the mode of e-mail. 13. In Soa Software Engineering India Private Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2013) 57 A.P.S.T.J. 103, a Division Bench of this Court held that as per Rule 64(1)(b) of the Telangana Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Order is not shown to have been served on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, even A.O.No.18164/2011-12/CST dt.25.03.2015 cannot be sustained on the ground of non-service of pre- assessment show cause notice on the petitioner and violation of principles of natural justice which caused prejudice to the petitioner. 17. As regards the period 2012-13, the Assessment Order No.9035/2012-13/CST dt.09.03.2016 refers to a show-cause notice dt.07.09.2015 and recites that it was sent by post. But there is no evidence of service of the same on the petitioner. The said Assessment Order was dispatched to the petitioner on 26.05.2016 but is also returned with endorsement "addressee left". Therefore, even for 2012-13 period there is no evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r filed a letter dt.23.10.2017 and declared certain turnovers. No proof of service of the pre-assessment show cause notice is filed by the 1st respondent and even the alleged letter dt.23.10.2017 has not been produced. No evidence produced by respondents 1 to 3 of proof of service of the said Assessment Order also on the petitioner. Without service of show cause notice and Assessment Order on the petitioner, the respondents cannot seek to enforce any demand raised thereunder as there has been a violation of principles of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. 20. In view of the above reasoning, the demand of tax raised in the impugned notice dt.17.02.2020 under Section 29 of the Telangana State VAT Act, 2005 served....