Sales Tax Assessment Order Not Received due to Change in E-mail ID: Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Petition [Read Order]

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the petition against the challenge on the assessment order under Sales Tax not received due to a change in email id. The court found that it would be the duty of the assessee to inform the Assessing Officer of any change in the e-mail ID. Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, had sought an exemption with a turn-over amounting to Rs.1,52,97,49,938/- ( Rupees One Hundred and Fifty Two Crores Ninety-Seven Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Eight Only ) for the assessment year 2015-2016 and filed F Forms for obtaining such exemption. However, it was found that a turn-over to an extent of Rs.2,05,37,776/- ( Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only ) was not covered by any F Forms. In view of the shortfall, the Assessing Officer added the turnover of Rs.2,05,37,776/- ( Rupees Two Crores Five Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six Only ) to the taxable turn-over and raised a demand of Rs.1,77,83,641/- ( Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Forty One Only ), by way of an assessment order dated 28.12.2019. This order is said to have been sent to the e-mail ID of the petitioner. The e-mail order was not received by the petitioner, in as much as the e-mail ID to which the order had been sent, had become inactive and was not being used by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the officer who was operating the said e-mail ID had left the service of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was unaware of any order being sent to the said e-mail ID. Being unaware of passing of the assessment order, the petitioner had been approaching the Office of the 1st respondent for completion of the assessments including the year 2015-2016 and was following up for obtaining refunds of tax arising out of the appeals and reassessment carried out at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a request for certain refunds in March 2021. The petitioner contended that this request was denied due to which the petitioner could not file an appeal against the order. The petitioner, contending that he had no alternative remedy, approached the Court by way of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner contended that the concerned F Forms relating to the disputed turn-over had been misplaced and could not be placed before the Assessing Officer in time. It is further contended that the lacunae or the defect in non-furnishing the F Forms can always be rectified by producing them before the Appellate Authority at the stage of the First Appeal or before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at the stage of the Second Appeal. It was argued that Rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 which would be applicable to the assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 also, did not provide for service of notice by sending an e-mail to the e-mail ID of a dealer and as no hard copy of the order had been served on the petitioner, there would still be time for the petitioner to be given a certified copy for filing of an appeal. Srinivasa Rao Kudupudi, learned counsel for petitioner would also rely upon Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration And Turnover) Rules, 1957, to contend that Rule 12 (7) of these Rules provide that F Forms have to be filed within three months from the end of the period to which the F Forms would apply with a further provision to the Assessing Officer to permit filing of such F Forms at any point of time if the dealer is able to satisfy the Assessing Officer that the delay in filing the F Forms is supported by a sufficient cause. A division bench of Justice R Raghunandan Rao and Justice Harinath N viewed that the contention that service on the e-mail ID of the petitioner would not amount to proper service as the e-mail ID was inactive also cannot be accepted as it would be the duty of the petitioner to inform the Assessing Officer of any change in the e-mail ID. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates