AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing impugned notice dated 12.12.2012 in Form VAT 305 in TIN 28949296158 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, as illegal and arbitrary. Vide the impugned notice, ex parte assessment has been done against the petitioner. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the show cause notice, dated 16.08.2012, was served on one K. Anudeep Reddy, who was earlier an employee of the petitioner company, but his service has been terminated in the month of January, 2012. He further submits that the said Anudeep Reddy was not an authorized representative of the petitioner company.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on earlier occasions, said Anudeep Reddy had been representing the petitioner company. However, there is no material on record to show that Anudeep Reddy was authorized to represent the company.
Keeping in view the fact that there is no material on record that Anudeep Reddy was an authorized representative of the assessee, therefore, we are constrained to hold that there is no proper service on the petitioner.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned assessment order dated 12.12.2012 with a direction that the petitioner company may file its reply to the show cause notice issued earlier, by considering this order as a notice.
The reply be filed within a period of four (04) weeks from today and there shall be no further extension in this regard. Thereafter, the matter be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed. No costs.