1988 (7) TMI 382 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of additional tax under section 5-A of the Act on turnover under section 6-A.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to revise orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, faced additional tax levied on turnover under section 6-A for assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. The petitioner, unaware of the illegality, did not appeal until advised in 1983 following a court decision. The Deputy Commissioner, relying on precedent, upheld the petitioner's claim and directed relief. However, the Commissioner later sought to revise the order, claiming lack of jurisdiction for revision at the assessee's instance, contrary to prior court decisions. The Commissioner set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and imposed additional tax under section 5-A, which was deemed illegal due to lack of jurisdiction during the relevant assessment years.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Commissioner's orders for the three assessment years. The petitioner also contested the vires of section 6-A, although not pursued due to prior court validation. The relief sought was to declare the levy of additional tax under section 5-A as illegal. The question arose whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition under Article 226 despite the availability of an appeal remedy under the Act. The Supreme Court's rule on utilizing statutory remedies was cited, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

In this case, the lack of jurisdiction in imposing tax on turnover under section 6-A was evident, justifying the High Court's intervention under Article 226. The court noted that the Commissioner had the power to revise but lacked jurisdiction to levy the additional tax. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving factual disputes or inter-State sales, where alternative remedies should be exhausted first. Given the total lack of inherent jurisdiction in imposing the tax, the court quashed the Commissioner's orders for the three assessment years, allowing the writ petition to that extent.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional limitations and the need for lawful imposition of taxes. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the orders of the Commissioner were quashed for the relevant assessment years, addressing the issue of illegal levy of additional tax under section 5-A on turnover under section 6-A.