1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** W.P.Nos.3145 & 3177 of 2022 Between: Smt. Raavi Praveena, W/o. Late Sri Raavi Satish (Proprietor of M/s. Ramanjaneya Stone Crusher, c/o. Raavi Adinarayana, H.No.3/118, Uddhal Camp, Bommanahal, Bommanahal Mandal, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner And $ 1. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapuramu, P.A.R. Heights, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh ... Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced on : 08-10-2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No May be allowed to see the judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No to Law Reporters/Journals: 3. Whether the Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No Of the Judgment? 2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR + W.P.Nos.3145 & 3177 of 2022 % Dated: 08-10-2025 Smt. Raavi Praveena, W/o.Late Sri Raavi Satish (Proprietor of M/s. Ramanjaneya Stone Crusher, c/o. Raavi Adinarayana, H.No.3/118, Uddhal Camp, Bommanahal, Bommanahal Mandal, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. … Petitioner And $ 1. The Commercial Tax Officer-II, Anantapuramu, P.A.R. Heights, Gooty Road, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (CT) Department, A.P. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh ... Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri G. Narendra Chetty ^Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Commercial Tax <GIST : >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: 1 (2015) 58 Taxmann.com 340 (A.P) 3 APHC010047432022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 3145 & 3177 of 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 3145/2022 Between: 1. SMT. RAAVI PRAVEENA,, W/O LATE SRI RAAVI SATISH (PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RAMANJANEYA STONE CRUSHER), C/O RAAVI ADINARAYANA, H. NO. 3/118, UDDHAL CAMP, BOMMANAHAL, BOMMANAHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERII, ANANTAPURAMU, P.A.R. HEIGHTS, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the action of the First Respondent in initiating assessment proceedings and passing the impugned 4 Ex-Parte Best Judgment Assessment Order vide AAO no. ZG3707100D46375, dated 26-03-2020, for the Tax Periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, against a dead person and a non- existent dealer, though the fact of his death was brought to his notice, which is also barred by limitation up to the Tax Periods from 04/2014 to 02/2016 (i.e, for 23 months/tax periods out of the 24 months/tax periods for which it was passed), and further in passing the same on the basis of solely the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, without any independent enquiry and without furnishing copy of the said report, and demanding the tax so assessed from the Petitioner and invoking coercive steps for recovery of the same by issuing Form no. 4 (Demand prior to attachment of land), dated 31- 12-2021, under S. 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as arbitrary, capricious, without authority, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the said impugned ex-parte Best Judgment Assessment Order as null and void ab intio and non-est and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 7,82,820-00 imposed by the First Respondent vide the impugned Ex-Parte Best Judgment Assessment Order vide AAO no. ZG3707100D46375, dated 26-03¬2020, for the Tax Periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. Y N VIVEKANANDA 5 W.P.No.3177 of 2022 Between: 1. RAAVI PRAVEENA, W/O LATE SRI RAAVI SATISH (PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RAMANJANEYA STONE CRUSHER), C/O RAAVI ADINARAYANA, H. NO. 3/118, UDDHAL CAMP, BOMMANAHAL, BOMMANAHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER II, ANANTAPURAMU, P.A.R. HEIGHTS, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS holding that the action of the First Respondent in initiating penalty proceedings and passing the impugned Ex-Parte Penalty Order vide AAO no. ZH3711200D39742, dated 26-03-2020, for the Tax Periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, against a dead person and a non-existent dealer, though the fact of his death was brought to his notice, which is also barred by limitation up to the Tax Periods from 04/2014 to 02/2016 (i.e, for 23 months/tax periods out of the 24 months/tax periods for which it was passed), and further in passing the same on the basis of solely the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, without any independent enquiry and without furnishing copy of the said report, and demanding the penalty so imposed from the Petitioner and invoking coercive steps for recovery of the same by issuing Form no. 4 (Demand prior to attachment of land), dated 31-12-2021, under S. 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as arbitrary, capricious, without authority, without jurisdiction, 6 contrary to law and illegal and consequently set aside the said impugned ex- parte Penalty Order as null and void ab initio and non-est and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of collection of the disputed penalty of Rs. 7,82,820-00 imposed by the First Respondent vide the impugned Ex-Parte Penalty Order vide AAO no. ZH3711200D39742, dated 26-03-2020, for the Tax Periods 2014-15 and 2015-16 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 22.09.2022 in W.P. No.3177 of 2022, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. Y N VIVEKANANDA 7 The Court made the following Common Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As these two Writ Petitions relate to the assessment and penalty proceedings in the same period in relation to the same dealer, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. The husband of the petitioner was a registered dealer under A.P. VAT Act and was involved in the business of excavation of stone and processing the same in a stone crusher. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 20.07.2017. The fact of his demise was also informed to the 1st respondent-assessing authority on 14.11.2017. This information was given to the 1st respondent on account of certain claims made by the 1st respondent, for recovery of tax amounts, from the late husband of the petitioner. 3. Subsequent to these proceedings, the 1st respondent issued an order of assessment, dated 26.03.2020, and later, an order of penalty, dated 18.11.2020. In both these proceedings, mention was made of notices that are said to have been sent to the late husband of the petitioner and the non- appearance and non-response of the late husband of the petitioner to these notices. 4. The 1st respondent took note of the fact that the late husband of the petitioner had not filed any returns under the A.P VAT Act for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, while the Vigilance and Enforcement Officials had obtained details of dispatch of material, from the Mines and Geology 8 Department, Ananthapuram for the years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. These dispatch details are said to have revealed that the late husband of the petitioner had dispatched material worth of Rs.1,56,56,400/- , while no tax was paid under the A.P VAT Act. On this basis, the assessment order and penalty orders were passed, levying of tax of Rs.7,82,820/- and penalty of Rs.7,82,820/-. 5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petitions. 6. The case of the petitioner as submitted by Sri Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the late husband of the petitioner had passed away in the year 2017 much prior to the initiation of the assessment or penalty proceedings and that these proceedings were initiated despite the department having the knowledge that the late husband of the petitioner had passed away. It is contended that no order of assessment of penalty could have been passed against a dead person. The learned counsel would also rely upon Section 23 of the A.P VAT Act which provides for the legal representatives or other representatives of a deceased dealer, to represent such a dealer by the assessment proceedings as well as subsequent appeal or revisional proceedings. 7. Learned counsel would also contend that the period of limitation set out under Section 21(3) of A.P VAT Act had expired for both these years and the order of assessment and order of penalty were beyond the said period. He would also contend that the provisions of Section 21(5) which gives 9 an extended period of six years was not available inasmuch as neither the notices nor the impugned assessment or penalty orders mentioned Section 21(5). He would also submit that none of the proceedings anywhere state that there was willful default or willful suppression of fact which is the basis for revoking Section 24(5) of the A.P VAT Act. 8. The learned Government Pleader would contend that the tone and tenor of the notices as well as the orders would make it clear that the assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings had been initiated primarily on the ground that the late husband of the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the actual turnovers and as such, the provisions of Section 21(5) could be invoked by the assessing authority. 9. Section 21(3) of the A.P VAT Act stipulates that all assessments relating to any return filed by a dealer should be subject to assessment within four years from the due date of the return or within four years of the date of filing of the return. The tax period, for filing a return, under the A.P. VAT Act, is a calendar month. The tax returns are to be filed within 20 days of the succeeding month. The period of limitation is to be calculated on a monthly basis. Thus, the limitation for passing an assessment order would expire, for the months of April to February 2016, by 20.03.2020. 10. Section 21(5) of A.P VAT Act extends the period of four years for passing assessment orders to a period of six years. In the event of Section 21(5) being applied, the order of assessment and penalty would be within limitation. However, Section 21(5) stipulates that the said provision would be 10 available where there is a willful evasion of tax committed by the dealer. The question that would arise is whether such a provision can be invoked without specifically mentioning the fact that there was willful evasion of tax by a dealer. The further question is whether the aid of such a provision can be taken without any mention being made either in the assessment order or in the show cause notice that the extended period of limitation was being applied. 11. This issue had come up before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of K.G.F. Cottons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU1. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh after an extensive review of the facts and law had summarized their conclusions in paragraph-111 of the said judgment. The Division Bench had held as follows, in relation to this issue: (lv). The prescribed authority gets jurisdiction to assess the VAT dealer to tax, within the extended period of limitation of six years under Section 21(5) of the VAT Act, only if the said dealer has committed willful evasion of tax. (lvi). As the assessment order is required, under Rule 25(5) of the Rules, to be preceded by a notice in Form VAT 305-A, it would not suffice for the assessing authority to state, for the first time in the assessment order, that the assessee has committed willful evasion of tax. The show cause notice should contain factual details to show the basis on which the assessing authority has arrived at the tentative conclusion that the VAT dealer has committed willful evasion of tax. (lvii). It is mandatory that the show-cause notice must contain allegations against the assessee falling within the four corners of Section 21(5).Unless the assessee is put to notice, he would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. In the absence of any 1 (2015) 58 Taxmann.com 340 (A.P) 11 such allegations in the show-cause notice, the Revenue cannot sustain the notice or the order passed under Section 21(5) of the Act. (lviii). If the allegations in the show-cause notice, accepted as true, show that the dealer had committed willful evasion of tax, and the findings recorded in the assessment order establish that the assessee had willfully evaded tax, it would suffice to extend the period of limitation in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act notwithstanding that the show-cause notice does not explicitly refer to Section 21(5) and does not specifically use the words willful evasion of tax. (lix). As the fact of commission of willful evasion is a jurisdictional fact, the dealer is entitled to satisfy the prescribed authority, on being given the opportunity to show cause, that such jurisdictional facts are nonexistent, and jurisdiction under Section 21(5) of the Act should not be exercised. It is necessary, therefore, for the prescribed authority to detail these jurisdictional facts in the show-cause notice proposing to assess the dealer to tax under Section 21(5) of the Act. 12. We do not propose to go into the question of whether the said provision would be applicable inasmuch as these writ petitions are being disposed of on another ground and any finding by this Court, on this issue, could affect the disposal of the assessment proceedings before the assessing authority. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also raised the contention that the late husband of the petitioner had passed away in the year 2017 before initiation of the assessment and penalty orders and even before the issuance of the show cause notice. It is a settled principle of common law that proceedings cannot be initiated against a dead person. The same principle can safely be extended to the proceedings under tax laws also. However, Section 23 of the A.P. VAT Act provides for continuation of assessments, appeals and revisions in relation to tax liability of a dead person in the following manner: 12 Section 23. Liability of executor, administrator, legal representative: (1) Where any dealer doing business in respect of which tax is payable under the Act is dead, the Executor, Administrator, Successor in title or other legal representative of the deceased dealer shall, in respect of such business, be liable to submit the returns due under the Act and to assessment under section 21 and to pay out of the estate of the deceased dealer, the tax, interest and any penalty assessed or levied as payable by the deceased dealer. (2) The provision relating to appeals and revisions shall be applicable to assessment made under sub-section (1) as if the Executor, Administrator, Successor in title or other legal representative were himself the dealer. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to a partnership firm of which the managing partners have died. 14. The aforesaid provision clearly provides for the legal representatives or administrators etc., of the estate of a dead person to take up the responsibility of filing necessary returns, participating in the assessment proceedings as well as in the subsequent appellate or revisional proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased dealer, would fall squarely within the category of legal representatives of the deceased dealer. 15. In view of the fact that the proceedings could not have been initiated or continued against a dead person, both the order of assessment as well as the order of penalty would have to be set aside. However, by virtue of 13 Section 23 of the A.P VAT Act, the said proceedings can be continued against the petitioner herein and such other legal representatives who would be class- I heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner, under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 16. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the order of assessment, dated 26.03.2020, and order of penalty, dated 18.11.2020, and the matters are remanded back to the assessing authority for completing the assessment and penalty proceedings, if any, in accordance with law and after due notice and opportunity being given to the petitioner and such other class-I heirs who may choose to appear before the assessing authority. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 14 104 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOs: 3177 & 3145 of 2022 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 08.10.2025 RJS 15