TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 08/2005 to 07/2009 under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ('AP VAT Act, 2005'), as illegal, improper and contrary to law. 2) The facts, which lead to passing of the impugned order, are as under: (i) The Petitioner herein is a registered dealer under the AP VAT Act, 2005, under the rolls of 1st Respondent, doing business in manufacture and sale of machinery and its parts i.e., food processing equipments mainly for manufacturing of mango fruit pulp. (ii) The Assessing Authority conducted audit and passed an Assessment Order, dated 14.09.2009, for the above mentioned tax period under AP VAT Act, 2005, imposing tax on Body Beader, Fruit Mills, Tank, Fruit Washer, Tub Washer etc., @ 12.5% by treating the same as unc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., within three months from the date of receipt of the order. (v) It is said that, pursuant to the order passed by the AP VAT Tribunal, on 30.11.2018, the 1st Respondent passed the Order impugned herein on 14.02.2022 reiterating the order passed earlier imposing tax on the goods @ 12.5% by treating the same as unclassified goods falling under residuary Schedule-V. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed mainly on the following grounds: a) Though the Tribunal directed the primary authority to pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, the 1st Respondent passed the order impugned nearly three years after receipt of the order of the Tribunal, which itself is suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others V. M/s. Commercial Steel Limited (2021) SCC Online SC 884, in support of his plea. He further submits that the Judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner may not come to his rescue for the reason that in the said case, the matter was once again remanded back to the primary authority for consideration in accordance with the law laid down after giving a fresh notice to the Petitioner therein. In other words, his argument is that, the issue in the said case is slightly different to the case on hand. Apart from that, he would submit that the advantage, if any, of the Div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation." 7) In the present case, as stated earlier, neither there is breach of any fundamental rights or an excess of jurisdiction nor is there a challenge to the vires of the statue or delegated legislation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, his case would fall under the category of violation of 'principles of natural justice', but, the record nowhere indicate any order being passed without hearing the Petitioner. A perusal of the interim order would show that personal hearing was accorded on 31.01.2022. Therefore, even the said ground ....