2022 (1) TMI 1012

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. C. D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order, dated 26.11.2021, passed by the respondent no.1 by which the claim for exemption being charged under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with regard to the goods replaced being covered under warranty of the product sold by the petitioner has been rejected for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16.   3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially also an Assessment Order was passed levying tax on such product, but in appeal, by order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Tirupath....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to the matter being remanded to him by the Appellate Authority.   5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as far as the issue of limitation is concerned, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are erroneous for the reason that once the matter has been remanded, the Assessing Authority has got independent and original powers under the statute and the same authorizes him to pass an order within three (3) years as per Section 37 of the Act. Thus, once the statute prescribed the limitation period, the Assessment Order being passed in a proceeding, the same is covered under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this connection, attention of the Court was drawn to the Order, dated 23.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that such observations are incorrect as all such details have been furnished by him before the authority concerned. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that such plea has not been taken in the affidavit in the present case and most importantly, the matter relates to appreciation of evidence, which is voluminous, and the same has to be corroborated by taking evidence, which the Court would not go into it in the present proceeding. It was further submitted that in the order itself, it has been indicated that there was a statutory forum of appeal to the Appellate Joint Commissioner (CT), Tirupathi, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the order. 8. Having....