Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 868 (AP)

Rump Industries v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

2022-09-13

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “......pleased to issue Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Ex-parte Best Judgment Assessment Proceedings, dated 19.03.2020 served on the petitioner on 20.03.2020 for the tax period 2016-17 to 2017-18 (September, 2016 to June, 2017) under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Ex-parte Best Judgment Assessment Proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 19.03.2020 and pass.....” 3. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern carrying on business in purchase and sale of C.I. Pipes and Fittings, PVC Products etc. and is a registered dealer on the rolls of respondent No. 2, both under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Respondent No. 1 herein, pursuant to an authorization given by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Nellore, audited the books of accounts of the petitioner and after audit, issued show cause notice, dated 28.02.2020, which was served on the petitioner on 06.03.2020, proposing to disallow input tax credit of Rs. 4,60,601/-. It is stated that because of certain contingencies and the pandemic, the petitioner could not file objections and could not also prefer an appeal before the authority. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed mainly on the ground that though the show cause notice was issued, the time given to collect material is too short that he could not submit his documents, which lead to passing of an ex-parte Best Judgment Assessment. Hence, Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the matter may be remanded back to respondent No. 1 enabling the petitioner to submit his documents. 4. Hence, Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the matter may be remanded back to respondent No. 1 enabling the petitioner to submit his documents. 4. Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, opposed the same contending that the lock down was declared on 25.3.2020 and as such, the grievance of the petitioner that he could not file any explanation because of pandemic cannot be accepted. He further submits that in spite of service of show cause notice, no effort was made to seek time before the authority for submitting documents. Having regard to the conduct of the assessee, he would contend that the order under challenge warrants no interference. 5. As seen from the order impugned, a show cause notice in Form 305A was issued to the petitioner on 28.2.2020 calling upon him to show cause as to why input tax credit should not be disallowed. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 06.03.2020. The same is not in dispute but the only ground urged is that the time was too short to submit all the documents. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4,60,601/- without giving an opportunity to submit documents and having regard to the fact that the pandemic has just set-in at that point of time, we feel that the matter can be remanded back to the assessing authority i.e. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-II, Circle No. II, Nellore on certain terms and conditions. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if an appeal is preferred, the petitioner would have to pay 12½ % of the disputed tax and the same may be directed to be deposited by the petitioner. However, Sri S.A.V. Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing for the respondents, would contend that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; as no effort was made by the petitioner to prefer an appeal and having regard to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at least 50% of the disputed tax amount may be directed to be deposited by the petitioner. 8. 8. Taking into consideration the facts in issue, we feel it just and proper to set aside the order impugned and accordingly, ex-parte Best Judgment Audit Assessment Proceedings of respondent No. 1, dated 19.03.2020, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No. 1 subject to petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within a period of four (4) weeks from today. In default, the order impugned shall come into operation and the authorities shall proceed further in accordance with law. It is made clear that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this order came to be passed and the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.