1994 (4) TMI 294 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether a revision under section 20(2) is maintainable at the instance of the assessee? Held that - Appeal allowed. The High Court has committed an error in rejecting the revision by the State. Accordingly we hold that the aggrieved assessee has only to pursue the remedies provided in the Act and he has no right to make an application under section 20 of the Act seeking revision of the orders of assessments made under the Act by original authorities. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court and STAT are set aside and the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is restored. But in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revision under section 20(2) at the instance of the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved appeals related to different assessments under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, concerning the classification of "cotton lint" for taxation purposes. The respondent-assessee, a registered dealer, sought revision of assessments made under section 5(1) of the Act, based on a High Court decision classifying cotton lint as "cotton waste" for taxation at a lower rate. The Deputy Commissioner initially dismissed the revisions, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) allowed them, directing reassessment under a specific entry of the First Schedule.

The primary issue revolved around the maintainability of a revision under section 20(2) of the Act at the instance of the assessee. Section 20 provided for revision by specified authorities, including the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but did not explicitly grant the right to the assessee to seek revision. The Act granted the dealer the right to appeal against prejudicial orders or proceedings, indicating a specific remedy for the assessee through appeals or revisions to the Appellate Tribunal.

The judgment referred to a Privy Council decision on income tax assessments, emphasizing that statutory provisions determine the rights and remedies available to the assessee. The Court highlighted that section 20's suo motu revisional power was exclusively for specified authorities and not for the assessee to invoke. Previous High Court judgments in Andhra Pradesh had also held that section 20 did not provide a right of revision at the instance of the assessee, reinforcing the principle that assessments must be challenged through appeals or revisions as per the Act.

The Tribunal's reliance on a previous Division Bench decision was deemed erroneous, as it incorrectly interpreted the Commissioner's power to revise assessments under section 20 at the instance of the assessee. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the revision by the State, affirming that the assessee must follow the remedies provided in the Act and does not have the right to seek revision under section 20. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and STAT orders, and restoring the Deputy Commissioner's orders, with no costs awarded.