1959 (4) TMI 16 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 31(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to assess escaped turnover.
3. Powers of the appellate and revisional authorities under Sections 19 and 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
4. Rule-making power of the Government under Section 39 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
5. Reassessment after prior revision by competent authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 31(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957:
The primary issue discussed was the constitutionality of Rule 31(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The court examined whether this rule was in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. Rule 31(5) extends the powers of reassessment to appellate or revisional authorities, which the petitioners contended was beyond the scope of the Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to Assess Escaped Turnover:
The petitioners argued that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not an "assessing authority" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, and thus did not have the jurisdiction to assess escaped turnover. The Act authorized only specific officials, such as Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, Deputy Commercial Tax Officers, and Commercial Tax Officers, to act as assessing authorities, excluding the Deputy Commissioner from this role.

3. Powers of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities under Sections 19 and 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:
The court analyzed Sections 19 and 20 to determine the extent of the powers conferred on appellate and revisional authorities. Section 19 allows an appellate authority to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment but does not imply the power to reassess. Section 20 provides revisional jurisdiction to the Board of Revenue and other designated officers but limits this power to reviewing the legality or propriety of existing records, not to reassess based on new evidence.

4. Rule-Making Power of the Government under Section 39 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:
The Government Pleader argued that Rule 31(5) was constitutionally valid under the rule-making power granted by Section 39 of the Act. However, the court found that Section 39 did not authorize the Government to extend reassessment powers to appellate or revisional authorities, as the Act specifically allocated these duties to assessing authorities.

5. Reassessment after Prior Revision by Competent Authority:
An additional argument was raised that reassessment could not be conducted if the assessment had already been revised by a competent authority. The Government Pleader did not contest this point, and the court acknowledged that the authorities lacked the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction more than once.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Rule 31(5) was ultra vires the rule-making power of the Government and, therefore, invalid. Consequently, any actions taken under this rule could not be sustained. The petitions were allowed, and the court struck down Rule 31(5) as unconstitutional. There was no order as to costs.