ORDER :

(C. Praveen Kumar, J.)

1. Heard both sides and perused the record.

2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the Assessment Order, dated 27.03.2021, passed by the first Respondent, mainly on ground that the said Assessment is barred by limitation and is without jurisdiction.

3. The facts, in issue, are as under:

a) The Petitioner herein is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first Respondent with effect from 01.06.2016 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [‘VAT Act’].

b) The Petitioner herein is said to be a Works Contractor, engaged in construction of buildings, with the Office situated at Gandhipuram, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

c) On an authorization given by second Respondent to the first Respondent, verified the income tax returns of the Petitioner for the financial year 2014-2015 and having regard to non-explanation of certain entries, took up assessment under the VAT Act. A show-cause notice was issued on 22.03.2021 stating that the Petitioner is liable to pay tax @ Rs.51,94,903/- on the ground that the income tax returns filed by the Petitioner would show that he received gross income of Rs.3,58,26,915/-, but failed to file VAT returns.

d) Having regard to the above, the first Respondent proposed to assess the Petitioner under Section 21 (5) of VAT Act, on the basis of turnover reported in the income tax returns. The entire turnover was proposed to be taxed @ 14.5%. The Petitioner was directed to submit reply with an opportunity of personal hearing on 25.03.2021. But, however, the Petitioner was called upon to attend personal hearing on 27.03.2021. Objections came to be filed on 27.03.2021, as he was not able to attend personal hearing. The specific plea taken was that, the works contract receipts shown in the income tax returns for the years 2014-15 are in respect of sub-contract works done in the State of Orissa for Gayatri Projects Limited and GCN Infratech Private Limited. He enclosed work orders to show that, it is only the State of Orissa, which has to levy tax and not the State of Andhra Pradesh and, accordingly, requested the first Respondent to drop the proposal to levy tax.

e) It is further stated in the affidavit that, the main contractor M/s. Gayathri Projects Limited, has issued a letter, dated 30.03.2021, stating that the work was executed by the Petitioner in the State of Orissa and M/s. Gayathri Projects Limited, has discharged VAT on behalf of the Petitioner in the State of Orissa. However, all the contentions raised are overruled, confirming the liability by the Order impugned in the present Writ Petition.

4. The main ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as stated earlier, is that the proceedings are barred by limitation and that the Authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the same. He further submits that, though the address of Rajamahendravaram was given for the purpose of business convenience, but the entire work was done in the State of Orissa and, as such, the Authority erred in passing the impugned Order. In any event, he would submit that, since the Assessment Order came to be passed in the month of March, 2021, for the assessment years 2014-15, the same is barred by limitation, as the period prescribed under Section 21 (4) for passing an Assessment Order is four [04] years.

5. (i) The same was opposed by Sri. T.C.D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, contending that, since there is a willful evasion of tax, the period of limitation would be six [06] years in terms of Section 21 (5) of VAT Act.

(ii) Insofar as the issue, as to whether the Petitioner herein has done work only in the State of Orissa, he would submit that, the same is a factual dispute, which cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition.

6. (i) In reply, Sri. P. Karthik Ramana, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that, even if Section 21(5) of the VAT Act is invoked, the period of assessment for 11 months i.e. ending Feb