1 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 APHC010534372023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27833/2023 Between: Core Minerals ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. .... The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents. 2 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 2. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent conducted an audit and assessment proceedings on the petitioner, for the tax period from August, 2015 to April 2016, by way of an order dated 13.10.2020. These proceedings were challenged, by the petitioner, before the 3rd respondent, by way of an appeal. The 3rd respondent dismissed the said appeal on 05.07.2023. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 13.10.2020 and the order of appeal dated 05.07.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the audit assessment proceedings dated 13.10.2020 are beyond limitation. The petitioner contends that the period of limitation of four years, provided under the Act, is to be computed from the end of each tax period, i.e., for each month, and the period of four years up to April, 2016 expires by the end of May 2020, whereas the assessment was done on 13.10.2020. 4. The petitioner also assails both the orders, on the ground that the extended period of six years, provided under Section 21(5) of the Act, could not have been invoked as none of the show cause notices issued by the 1st respondent, prior to the passing of the impugned , dated 13.10.2020, had raised the issue of extension of limitation in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act. 5. The petitioner also contends that the impugned audit assessment proceedings dated 13.10.2020, do not speak of willful evasion of tax, and in 3 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 such circumstances, the extended period of limitation, under Section 21(5) of the Act could not have been invoked. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had filed VAT-200 returns from August 2015 to March 2016. However, the books of accounts for the period 01.08.2015 to 30.06.2017 were not produced, though notices for such production were served on the petitioner and only some copies of purchase and sales extracts etc., were submitted on 21.08.2020. In view of non-cooperation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent had taken into account the information available on VATIS and issued a show cause notice on best judgment basis. The petitioner did not respond to the said show cause notice or any of the subsequent show cause notices, due to which, the assessing authority has construed that there were no objections to the proposed levy of tax and passed the order of assessment dated 13.10.2020 raising a demand of Rs.37,74,588/-. The 2nd respondent contends that the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act would be applicable in view of the fact that there had been willful evasion of tax by the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 26.06.2020 reveals that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled w.e.f., 07.12.2016 and that a best judgment assessment was proposed in view of the fact that none of the details relating to sale turnovers verification of ITC, verification of GIS reports, SIS reports verification could be verified as none of these records were submitted by the petitioner. Show cause notice also states that 4 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 verification of way bills, utilized by the petitioner, had revealed the turnovers, which were set out in the show cause notice. On this basis, a demand of Rs.37,74,588/- was raised, with liberty to the petitioner to demonstrate that the said proposal should not to be converted into an order of assessment. 8. The impugned order, dated 13.10.2020, records these facts and the fact that a show cause notice was issued and no reply had been received from the petitioner on the said show cause notice. On this basis, the tax demand of Rs.37,74,588/- was confirmed. Though the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act read with Rule 25(5) of the A.P. VAT Rules, have not been invoked in the show cause notice, and the same was invoked in the impugned order of assessment dated 13.10.2020. 9. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the order of assessment or the subsequent appeal order, on the merits of the case, as no material has been placed before this Court to rebut the presumptions raised in the show cause notice and subsequently, confirmed by way of the impugned order. 10. The only ground that remains to be looked into is, whether the impugned order of assessment was passed within the period of limitation or not. In usual course, the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the tax period and the order dated 13.10.2020 is beyond the period of limitation. 5 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 11. However, the 1st respondent pressed into service, Section 21(5) of the Act, which gives an extended period of limitation of six years, in the event of evasion of tax by the dealer. In the present case, VAT returns of the petitioner did not disclose any of the turnovers which came to the light on account of the usage of e-weigh bills and the inputs returns of the petitioner. The suppression of turnover, in the VAT returns, filed by the petitioner, is sufficient to hold that there has been evasion of tax. Once there is such evasion of tax, the extended period of limitation of six years, under Section 21(5) of the Act would be applicable. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that invocation of Section 21(5) of the Act should have been mentioned in the show cause notice, failing which such provision could not have been applied. He would submit that non-mention of provisions of Section 21(5) of the Act, in the show cause notice, vitiates the order of assessment, dated 13.10.2020, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had received all the show cause notices. However, the petitioner chose not to respond to either the initial show cause notice issued in June, 2020 or the subsequent notices. 15. The question of violation of principles of natural justice would arise, if a show cause notice is issued to a person and he responds to such show cause notice, after which additional grounds, which were not raised in the show cause notice are utilized, for passing an adverse order against the 6 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 notice. In the present case, the petitioner has not responded to any of the show cause notices. In such circumstances, non-mentioning of Section 21(5) of the Act, in the show cause notice, would not be fatal to the impugned order dated 13.10.2020. 16. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with either the initial order of assessment dated 13.10.2020 or the appeal order dated 05.07.2023. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Js. 7 RRR,J& MRK,J W.P.No.27833/2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.27833 of 2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) _______ January, 2025 Js