Page 68 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

314 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
hearing also left the services of the Petitioner on 31-1-2018. Consequently,
the assessment order remained uncontested.
9. It is respectfully submitted that apart from this act of negligence, Mr. P.
Sri Ram Murthy also committed certain other irregularities over a period of
one year, which came to the light of the Management of the Company in
the month of July, 2018. Immediately, disciplinary proceedings were initiat-
ed against him, by issuing a notice on 26-7-2018 (ex. P-3) and also suspend-
ing him from official duties with immediate effect.
10. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not aware of the impugned or-
der since that fact was not brought to the notice by its own employee, due
to this negligence.
11. It appears, the said Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy having realized his negli-
gence, made further mistake, by filing an application under Rule 60 of the
APVAT Rules read with Rule 14A(10) of the CST (AP) Rules on 9-5-2018
(Ex. P-4) contending, inter alia, that the revised value of stock transfer as per
VAT 200-B should have been considered instead of Rs. 866,25,15,490/-. In
the said representation, it is claimed that it has filed revised returns under
the VAT Act, disclosing the correct ‘F’ form turnover for the purposes of re-
stricting the input tax credit while filing Form 200-B at the end of the year.
The ITC credit under VAT was also allowed by the 1st Respondent, consid-
ering the stock transfer turnover as Rs. 863,33,95,259/-. In the said represen-
tation, it was contended that the turnover of Rs. 1,85,03,360/-, could not
have been levied with the tax since it is admittedly covered by ‘F’ forms.
12. The representation of the Petitioner under Rule 60 was rejected by the
1st Respondent, by endorsement, dated 11-5-2018 (Ex. P-5) on the ground,
that it is not a case for considering it as a mistake rectifiable under Rule 60.
It is also submitted that Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy appear to have filed an ap-
peal against the endorsement of the 1st Respondent dated 11-5-2018 to 2nd
Respondent on 28-5-2018. This was also without knowledge of the petition-
er’s management.
13. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not aware of these develop-
ments till the misdeeds of Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy were being enquired into.
It is submitted that Mr. P. Sri Ram Murthy has in fact, remitted an amount
of Rs. 9,59,150/- being 12.5% of the disputed tax in the assessment order
online, on 12-9-2017 (Ex. P-6). The payment was made as if it is towards
miscellaneous tax payment for June, 2014. When the Petitioner was seeking
to reconcile as to how this amount was deposited and under what account
it came to be known it is for the purpose of preferring an appeal against the
impugned order. All this verification happened post suspension of Mr. P.
Sri Ram Murthy.
14. The Petitioner faced with this unfortunate situation, filed an appeal
under Section 31 of the VAT Act on 24-9-2018 on the bona fide belief that
there are good grounds for condonation of the delay since the Petitioner
cannot suffer for the errors committed by one of its employees.
15. It is submitted that the 2nd Respondent, vide order, dated 25-10-2018
(Ex. P-7), rejected the appeal on the ground that he has no power to con-
done the delay beyond 30 days. It is also observed in the said order that ap-
peal against the Endorsement was also dismissed by him on 17-8-2018.
However, copy of the order is not yet served on the petitioner. The 2nd Re-
spondent observed that the Petitioner cannot dispute the service of assess-

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  68