Mondelez India Foods Private Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that AO not responsible for service of order to inactive e-mail ID as it is assessee’s duty to inform change in e-mail ID. Also, held that service of order via e-mail is valid service of order as per amended rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.
Facts- The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, had sought exemption in relation to a turn-over amounting to Rs.1,52,97,49,938/- for A.Y. 2015-2016 and filed F Forms for obtaining such exemption. However, it was found that a turn-over to an extent of Rs.2,05,37,776/- was not covered by any F Forms. In view of this shortfall, the Assessing Officer added the turn-over of Rs.2,05,37,776/- to the taxable turn-over and raised a demand of Rs.1,77,83,641/-, by way of an assessment order dated 28.12.2019. This order is said to have been sent to the e-mail ID of the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that this e-mail order was not received by the petitioner, in as much as the e-mail ID to which the order had been sent, had become inactive and was not being used by the petitioner.
