Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Krishna Food Products vs Additional Commissioner Ct on 5 November, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, J. Uma Devi
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI
WRIT PETITION No.10779 of 2019
ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order of respondent No.1, dated 15.02.2019, in CCTs Ref.No.LII(2)/69/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act").
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents.
3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition show that the petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of respondent No.2 under the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the VAT Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the trading of turmeric. For the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner exported turmeric to a tune of Rs.1,73,21,768/- and filed Form H certificates along with other documentary evidence before respondent No.2 to claim exemption. Accordingly, respondent No.2 finalized the assessment for the year 2011-2012 under the CST Act, by an order, dated 18.03.2015, granting exemption on export turnover among other issues like sales against C Form etc. The assessment order resulted in a demand of Rs.34,642/-, which the petitioner complied with.
2 CPK, J & JUD, J W.P.No.10779 of 2019 While the matter stood thus, respondent No.1 issued Pre-Revision Show Cause Notice, dated 20.04.2018, proposing to revise the assessment order, dated 18.03.2015. As per the show cause notice, the entire export turnover is proposed to be disallowed on the ground that the H Form declarations are materially defective. Thus, on the request of the petitioner, the defective H Forms (total ten in number) covering the turnover of Rs.1,73,21,768/- were returned to the petitioner for rectification and resubmission. The petitioner could obtain the five rectified H Forms from its customers, which were filed before respondent No.1 on 04.02.2019, and requested sometime for resubmission of the remaining five H Forms. However, respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner and proceeded to finalize the revision proceedings. Respondent No.1 again found fault with the five H Forms that were filed after rectification i.e., they were not authenticated, exporter did not specify the date of certificates, entries made are not authenticated etc., Accordingly, respondent No.1 confirmed the revision by an order, dated 15.02.2019, on the total export turnover of Rs.1,73,21,768/-. Consequently, respondent No.1 passed effectual order, dated 27.03.2019, demanding a sum of Rs.7,76,034/-.
4. Though in the impugned order, dated 15.02.2019, five H Forms, which are resubmitted, came to be rejected giving reasons, some of them do not form part of the earlier order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since there is no prohibition for returning of five H Forms which were rejected, he seeks the authorities to return the said five H Forms 3 CPK, J & JUD, J W.P.No.10779 of 2019 and permit the petitioner to rectify the defects, if any. In support of his case, he placed reliance on the common order, dated 28.04.2011, passed by a Division of this Court in W.P.Nos.8258, 9400, 9414, 9442 and 9448 of 2009.
6. Learned Government Pleader would contend that though there is no prohibition for returning the five H Forms, since the petitioner has already availed the benefit once, the authorities were justified in not returning the five rejected H Forms.
7. A common order, dated 28.04.2011, came to be passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.8258, 9400, 9414, 9442 and 9448 of 2009 wherein the Deputy Commissioner was directed to issue notice afresh to the petitioner therein, giving details of F Forms which he found defective and by giving an opportunity of being heard, permit it to rectify the defects, if any, in the F Forms within a reasonable period and, thereafter, pass an order afresh in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid common order directing respondent No.1 to issue notice afresh to the petitioner giving details of the H Forms which he found defective, give it an opportunity of being heard, permit it to rectify the defects, if any, in the H Forms within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of return of five H Forms and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
4 CPK, J & JUD, J W.P.No.10779 of 2019 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ______________________ JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI Date : 05.11.2019 AMD 5 CPK, J & JUD, J W.P.No.10779 of 2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI WRIT PETITION No.10779 of 2019 Date : 05.11.2019 AMD