Case Law Details
Vyplavi Granites Vs CTO (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in passing the Assessment Order under the CST Act 1956 for the year 2015-2016, dated 31.01 2017, in a mechanical manner without granting any time to file objections to the proposed notice, dated 14.11.2016, or providing opportunity of hearing and also the inaction for not considering the request for reopen of assessment filed by the petitioner through letter, dated 02.05.2017, under Rule 12(7) read with Section 8(4)(a) and Rule 12(10) of CST (R&T) Rules read with 14-A (5-A) of the CST (AP) Rules of the CST Act 1956.
2) As seen from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein is a registered dealer of the 1st Respondent under A.P. VAT Act 2005 and CST Act 1956, engaged in the business of processing of raw granite blocks for manufacturing and export sales of polished granite slabs. A final Assessment came to be made by the 1st Respondent under CST Act 1956 for the year 2015-16, on 31.01.2017. It is said that, higher tax has been levied in the absence of any supporting evidence for direct exports and statutory declarations as required under Section 5(3) of CST Act without granting any time to file the objections, determining the net turnover of Rs., 2,43,29,660/-.
3. After receipt of the Impugned Proceedings on 15.03.2017, the petitioner submitted Direct Export documents, Form-C Form-H declarations along with proof of exports on 06.05.2017, with a request to revise the assessment proceedings, dated 31.01.2017, explaining the delay in filing the same.
4) The Petitioner pleads that the Judgment on the subject permits the Petitioner to rectify the omissions in the Impugned Proceedings. He also refers to Rule 60 of APVAT Rules read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act 1956 to show that “any authority prescribed, appellate or revising authority may at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record”. The meaning of “clerical” or “arithmetical” mistake came for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, the Apex Court permitted to reopen the assessment basing on the documents filed subsequently.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
