2021 Supreme(AP) 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J. UMA DEVI, JJ.
OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.382 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2021

Point of law: Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction.

Headnote:

AP VAT Rules, 2005 – Rule 64 – Assessment Order – Petitioner is M/s. OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited, Anantapuram, and a Company engaged in the business of generation and sale of wind power. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 vide TIN –The petitioner during the relevant period purchased certain goods which are in the nature of wind power equipment and accessories which were used for setting up and operation of wind power plant. The total value of the equipment is Rs.62,40,13,181/-. – Subsequently, during the month of May, 2018, the operations of the Company were shifted from the premises at Dwaraka Villas, Kalyandurg Road to the present premises at Kovur Nagar and the change of address was intimated to the GST Department vide application on the portal for registration of Kovur Nagar premises. – The amended registration certificate was also issued to the petitioner – While so, despite acknowledging the change in the address of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notices to the former address of the petitioner calling for the books of accounts for verification for the relevant period. – 2nd respondent also proceeded to issue show cause notice dated 20.03.2020 and personal hearing notices to the former address of the petitioner which were returned to the 2nd respondent by the postal authorities which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order itself. – Despite knowing that the notices were served to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue the impugned assessment order confirming the demand of Rs.3,43,20,724/-to the present address of the petitioner. – Since the impugned order was passed without serving pre-assessment show cause notice and personal hearing notice to the correct address of the petitioner, the petitioner had no opportunity to submit its case and thereby the principles of natural justice were grossly violated. – The impugned order is unsustainable, also for the reason that the demand under the assessment order was bared by limitation.

Finding of court: It is contended that the petitioner did not receive the aforementioned notices. – The petitioner produced copies of the notices sent to M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited. – A perusal of the same would show that a final notice under Section 64(1) of the AP VAT Act, 2005 was issued by the 2nd respondent to M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited, C/o Renew Power Venture India Private Limited, Service Road, Rudrampeta, NH 44, Kovur Nagar, Anantapuram, and also through e-mail ID ostroapwind@gmail.com. Admittedly, the petitioner’s concern is M/s. OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited which is a different one. – Then, the letter styled as endorsement (mentioned in reference No.4 of the assessment order) would show that the 2nd respondent granted 15 days time to the dealer as against their request letter – This letter was also addressed to M/s. OSTRO A.P. Wind Private Limited. – Then in reference Nos.6 and 7, show cause notice and personal hearing notice were sent by the 2nd respondent to the dealer but they were returned by the postal authorities as addressee was left. – Thus, admittedly those two notices were also not received by the petitioner. – It is stated in the counter that the notice in form VAT 305-A was sent to the house address of one of the Directors Sri Rajath Kumar Gupta of New Delhi. However, the petitioner’s contention is that Rajath Kumar Gupta has resigned from the Directorship itself. – To this effect, the petitioner filed a copy of Form No.DIR-XII which shows that the Director Rajath Kumar Gupta, S/o Ved Prakash, resigned from the Directorship – Hence, notice sent to him cannot be attributed to the petitioner. – Notice was also said to be sent by e-mail, but as already discussed supra, the concerned employee left service. – Court is of the view that the petitioner did not receive any of the notices said to be sent by the 2nd respondent and therefore, they had no occasion to submit their explanation/objection. – So also, they had no occasion to submit their case personally. – Consequently, the principles of natural justice are violated in the instant case. – Therefore, the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside.

Result: Writ Petition Allowed