TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,140/-, relating to sale of hair, was accepted, basing on "H" Forms issued by the buyers, who were registered dealers in the State of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh. In all, six [06] "H" Forms were submitted in original by the petitioner to respondent No.1. However, after verifying the documents supporting the claim, exemption was granted. (ii) Five [05] years later, the petitioner received proceedings, dated 24.02.2022 through e-mail and also by way of personal service on 14.03.2022, withdrawing the exemption granted to the extent of a turnover of Rs.3,42,12,210/- covered by three [03] "H" Forms issued by M/s. Gupta Hair Products (P) Limited, Chennai. A tax demand of Rs.39,48,308/- was raised. It is said that respondent No.1 took up reassessment under Rule 14-A(8) of the C.S.T. (A.P.) Rules, enquired with the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pallavaram Circle, Chennai, as to the genuineness of "H" Forms and believing the representation made, that Forms were not issued by their Officers, withdrew the exemption. Three [03] Forms, which are subject matter of dispute, are L2-038070, L1-151433 & L1-151432. This withdrawal of exemption is subject matter of challenge in the present W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Government Pleader would contend that the order under challenge warrants no interference. 5. A perusal of the order, dated 24.02.2022, which was received by the petitioner on 14.03.2022, would show that Assistant Commissioner (ST), Pallavaram Circle, Chennai, has submitted verification report stating that "H" Forms were not issued by the Department. Having regard to the same, the exemption granted/covered by "H" Forms in question were withdrawn. It is said that notices were issued to the dealers and sent to the last known address of the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due but the same were returned as "no such person is available". Under those circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed. 6. The grievance of the petitioner, as stated earlier, is that the impugned order came to be passed holding that the "H" Forms submitted by the petitioner are "bogus," without hearing the petitioner. The assessment order was passed on 20.05.2017, wherein the request of the petitioner for exemption was allowed. Five years later, i.e., in the year 2022, the order impugned came to be passed withdrawing the exemption. Though the respondents claim that the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or Courts in terms of the Supreme Court's order. In S. Kasi's case (referred supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an issue namely, as to whether limitation for filing charge sheet can be extended, thereby denying benefit under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Dealing with the same, the Apex Court, having regard to the factual situation and taking into consideration the liberty of an individual, did not agree with the argument of the respondents that statutory period for filing charge sheet under Section 167 Cr.P.C. also stands extended during the pandemic. 10. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. The order, dated 23.03.2020, is to the following effect:- "This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge)." 13. The issue as to extending the period of limitation in case of tax matters, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in V-Guard Industries Limited (referred supra). In the said case, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a situation where initially an assessment order was passed levying tax, but on appeal, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, vide his ....