1990 (10) TMI 340 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise assessment order
Validity of proposed levy of surcharge and additional tax under specific sections

Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise assessment order:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes proposing to revise an order under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The Court entertained the petition despite the revisional authority not taking a final decision, as certain contentions raised questioned the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise. The facts revealed an initial assessment followed by a reassessment that included a surcharge. The Deputy Commissioner dropped a proposed revision, citing a Tribunal decision. However, the Commissioner issued a revision notice, proposing to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and levy surcharge and additional tax. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 20(2-A) as the Tribunal had not decided on the issue. The Court rejected this contention, emphasizing the separate nature of assessment years and the need for finality in Tribunal decisions.

Validity of proposed levy of surcharge and additional tax under specific sections:
The petitioner argued that the Commissioner's revision was based on a misconception that the Deputy Commissioner could revise the original assessment order. The Court agreed, stating that the reassessment order, which included a surcharge, had been set aside by the appellate authority. As a result, no surcharge could be demanded unless the appellate order was revised. The Court prohibited the Commissioner from proceeding with the surcharge levy but allowed the possibility of initiating fresh proceedings. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to levy additional tax under section 5-A, as it was not proposed by the Deputy Commissioner and the prescribed time limit for revising the original assessment order had expired. The Court allowed the writ petition, issuing a writ of prohibition against the Commissioner from further action on the impugned revision notice.