TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition No.16888 of 2020 is filed challenging consequential penalty order dated 06.05.2019 in AAO 158401 by the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus: a) Petitioner company is a builder which constructs various individual apartments in the vicinity of Tirupathi and surrounding places. It constructed certain apartments under the name and style M/s Srinivasa Projects and M/s Srinidhi Project at Tirupathi in the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. b) The assessing authority levied tax of Rs. 6,85,081/- on the Managing Director in his private status. A writ petition No.38052/2018 was filed before the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein a direction was given to pass a fresh Assessment order. Pursuant to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner could not respond. The Managing Director, who got the notices had not bothered and later ran away and considering that there was no reply by the petitioner, the assessment order was passed. In fact, the petitioner filed a letter on 29.03.2019 which was received by the 1st respondent but failed to record the same. The 1st respondent ought to have verified assessment record. Assessing authority ought to have issued one more show cause notice to the petitioner, which was not done and Assessment order was passed holding that the records produced were fake records forgetting that they were certified by the Chartered Accountant who is a statutory authority and the audited documents are statutory documents. If really the Form 250 is a fake one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of Andhra Pradesh in writ petition No.3805 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018, a show cause notice was issued on 01.02.2019 to the petitioner. In response to the notice, the authorized representative of the petitioner's company filed annual report of the petitioner's company along with returns and Photostat copy of Form VAT 250. On verification of the annual report, it was noticed that the turnover of the petitioner fetched revenue of Rs. 15,39,19,154/- for the year 2013-14 on which the tax was not paid though the returns were filed in VAT 200. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 12.02.2019 which was duly served on petitioner on 22.02.2019. In response, the authorized representative of the respondent Sri M.A. Sunil Ahmed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... produced the original Form VAT 250 or the accounts as alleged in the affidavit. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore, this factual dispute cannot be determined in a writ petition but which should be examined by the appellate authority. The alleged Form VAT 250 was a fake document which should be examined by the appellate authority. The petitioner has not filed Form VAT 250 to this office. The Photostat copy of the Form VAT 250 contained a different stamp than what is used regularly in the office. Form VAT 250 contain a fake seal, date affixed on the date stamp is not related to the office of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent demands strict proof of the original version of the Form VAT 250. Hence, the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t records in connection with the assessment year 2013-14. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the type of seal and date affixed on Form VAT 250 of the assessment year 2013-14 was very much similar to the Form VAT 250 of assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. In that view, it is quite incomprehensible as to why the 1st respondent determined that the Form VAT 250 related to the assessment year 2013-14 alone is a fake one. Such an objection is illegal and illogical. a) Per contra, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes is that the petitioner produced Xerox copy of the Form VAT 250 which on verification found to be a fake one. The seal and date appearing on the Xerox copy of said Form VAT 250 d....