TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power plant. The total value of the equipment is Rs. 62,40,13,181/-. c) Subsequently, during the month of May, 2018, the operations of the Company were shifted from the premises at Dwaraka Villas, Kalyandurg Road to the present premises at Kovur Nagar and the change of address was intimated to the GST Department vide application dated 01.02.2019 on the portal for registration of Kovur Nagar premises. The amended registration certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2019. d) While so, despite acknowledging the change in the address of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notices dated 21.01.2019, 20.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the former address of the petitioner calling for the books of accounts for verification for the relevant period. The 2nd respondent also proceeded to issue show cause notice dated 20.03.2020 and personal hearing notices dated 22.05.2020 and 30.06.2020 to the former address of the petitioner which were returned to the 2nd respondent by the postal authorities which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order itself. e) Despite knowing that the notices were served to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was also sent for service by way of registered post with acknowledgement due, but it was returned unserved. As the 2nd respondent left with no other go, issued a show cause notice in Form VAT 305-A dated 20.03.2020. The said notice was sent for service to the place of business as well as the house address of Active Director of the firm Sri Rajath Kumar Gupta, S/o Ved Prakash, B/501, Hindon Apartments 25, Vasundhar Enclave, New Delhi, but the copy sent to the place of business was left un-served, but the copy sent to the said Active Director of the firm was served, but no reply was received so far. Thereafter, personal hearing notices dated 22.05.2020 and 30.06.2020 were sent to the aforementioned address, but only the copy sent to the Active Director was served. A copy of the show cause notice was also affixed on the Board of Local Chamber of Commerce, Anantapuram, as a substitute mode of service. In spite of receipt of said notices by the Active Director, they did not choose to comply. All the notices mainly show cause notice and hearing notices were served on the petitioner through official mail of the Company. The petitioner purposefully seeks to derive undue advantage under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r audit in Form VAT 304 dated 12.06.2016 and the notices dated 21.01.2019 and 20.11.2019 calling for books of accounts were served on the petitioner and on petitioner's request letter seeking 30 days time, the 2nd respondent vide his endorsement dated 30.01.2019 granted 15 days time, the petitioner in its rejoinder vehemently contended that none of the aforementioned notices were received by the petitioner. In fact, those notices were served on M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited which is a group company of the petitioner and in response thereof, the said company filed a letter dated 28.01.2019 seeking 30 days time and the 2nd respondent granted 15 days time and therefore, it is frivolous to contend that notices were duly served on the petitioner. The petitioner has not received any notices to its new address. c) Then, regarding the averment in para 5 of the counter that notices were sent to the e-mail ID of [email protected], is contended in the rejoinder that he was the erstwhile employee of the petitioner, who resigned from the company on 15.10.2018 itself and therefore, sending notices to his e-mail ID would not serve any purpose. e) Then, with regard to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd foremost contention of the respondents is that as against the impugned assessment order, an appeal is maintainable before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupati, under Section 31 of the AP VAT Act 2005 and on that ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. We are unable to countenance the said argument. The entire gamut of the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the rejoinder is aimed at projecting how the petitioner was not served with pre-audit, pre-assessment show cause notices and other notices and thereby how the petitioner was deprived the valuable opportunity of submitting their explanation and how the petitioner was not afforded a personal hearing thereby depriving the principles of natural justice. 10. In normal circumstances, this Court desists from entertaining the writ petition on the availability of efficacious and alternative remedy. However, under certain special circumstances, violation of principles of natural justice being one, this Court would exercise its preliminary jurisdiction. It was so held by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Mark MANU/SC/0664/1998 thus: "15. Under Article 226 of the Constitut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ext, the petitioner filed the proceedings dated 30.10.2018 issued by the Senior Manager, Human Resources, stating that Mr. Deepak Agarwal worked as Deputy Manager in Finance, Legal and Secretarial (Taxation) from 22.01.2016 to 15.10.2018. Therefore, as rightly argued by the petitioner, the notice dated 12.06.2016 cannot be said to be received by the petitioner. 14. Then, in the 3rd reference of the assessment order, notices dated 21.01.2019, 20.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 were mentioned stating that books of accounts were called for from the office of the petitioner through those notices. In paras 5 and 10 of the counter, it is mentioned as if the petitioner received those notices and submitted a letter seeking additional time for furnishing the information and in fact an endorsement dated 30.01.2019 was made by the 2nd respondent granting 15 days time. Further, the petitioner furnished the counter affidavit mentioned documents on 15.02.2019 containing the address of the Corporate Office, Delhi, but not the local address. Thus, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had in fact received all the notices. In this regard, the contention of the petitioner is that the no....