2024 (1) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and seeks the following reliefs: (a) quashing the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent imposing VAT on the alleged supply of diesel for the period October and November, 2022 to the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to re-adjudicate the issue after giving the report of the 3rd Respondent dated 27.12.2022 and an opportunity for submitting objections and a personal hearing to the Petitioner; and (b) alternatively, if the Petitioner is made liable to pay tax on the ground that Item 5 of the Schedule VI of the VAT Act is applicable on supplies of diesel to the 3rd Respondent, then the 3rd Respondent is required to pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 2.13 Crores. It is further alleged that the petitioner purchased HSD oil from undisclosed sources and made sales to the 3rd respondent. (a) The 1st respondent gave show cause notice on 17.03.2023 giving 15 days time to reply. The petitioner sought for adjournment on 10.04.2023. Thereafter two personal hearing notices were issued on 23.05.2023 and 12.06.2023. However since the petitioner was suffering with low back pain and hyper tension and as he was under bed rest for 4 months due to doctor's advice, he could not respond. Since there was no response from the petitioner, the 1st respondent passed assessment order dated 26.06.2023 levying tax of Rs. 56,29,367/- under AP VAT Act and Rules. Hence the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2023 has pellucidly mentioned in tabular form the particulars of the HSD Oil sold by the petitioner to Nuzividu Depot from February, 2022 to November, 2022. However, those sales were not accounted for in the books of account of the petitioner. If the petitioner wanted to contradict the said statement, he ought to have compared the particulars in the said statement with his sales register and issued reply to the show cause notice. Neither he gave the reply nor he sought for copy of the report from the 1st respondent, meaning thereby he admitted the correctness of the sales detailed in the show cause notice. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that subsequently the 1st respondent issued two personal hearing notices on 23.05.2023 a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim that the copy of the sales report was not furnished to him and therefore he could not give an effective reply. This is an untenable plea. As already stated supra, the particulars of the report were already mentioned in the show cause notice and the petitioner did not challenge the same. More so, the contents of the report are not new to the petitioner as those contents relate to the sales effected by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent for a specific period. Therefore, the contents of the report cannot be said to contain altogether unknown facts without which the petitioner cannot give an effective reply. Therefore, the petitioner's plea cannot be accepted. (a) The decision in Uma Maheshwara Rice and Flour Mills (supra 1) is o....