2023 (1) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the assessment year 2009-2010 under the Central Sales Tax Act , 1956 (for short 'the CST Act'), as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Heard Sri Kunuku Durga Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 3. Petitioner contends that it was assessed to Tax under the provisions of CST Act by the 2nd respondent authority for the assessment year 2009-2010 vide order dated 22.034.2013; that the 2nd respondent authority after scrutinizing the documents relating to export and also the Software export clearance certificate issued by Software Technology Parks of India, being the desi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ress in the VATIS (CTD PORTAL) was returned unserved with postal endorsement 'left the premises' and thus the service was effected through affixture as provided under Rule 54 of VAT Act, cannot be considered as a valid service, inasmuch as the 1st respondent ought to have effected service of notice by sending the same to the petitioner's Head office situated at Bangalore, which address was duly disclosed at the time of obtaining registration. 7. Petitioner further contends the fact of the 1st respondent being aware of its Bangalore address, is borne out from arrear notice issued dated 06.01.2018 wherein the address of the petitioner's corporate office at Bangalore is mentioned; and that it is on receipt of the said notice by the petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the show cause notice was sent to the last known address of the petitioner and also through e-mail and therefore there is sufficient compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice and no illegality or perversity can be alleged. The 1st respondent also further claims that, though the software turnover effected by the petitioner during the year is Rs.43,28,42,350/-, however, as the receipt in convertible exchange of Euros is more than four times of the exports claimed by the petitioner-company in the absence of balance sheet being filed, the action of the respondent authority does not suffer from any error. 11. We have taken note of the respective submissions. 12. In so far as the claim of the 1st respondent that the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plea taken without any documents to back such claim, and thus, is liable to be rejected. 14. As noted above, since the petitioner had given intimation of closure of business by submitting VAT Form 121, it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent authority to effect service of notice at the address of the corporate office and not by resorting to sending show cause notice either by registered post as claimed or by affixture at the last known address. Thus, the claim of the respondents in the counter-affidavit as well as the findings recorded in the impugned order of revision as to service of show cause notice on the petitioner, cannot be accepted as valid service and is liable to be rejected. 15. Since the impugned order has been pass....