1994 (4) TMI 365 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excess tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 6 of 1957.
2. Interpretation of Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.
3. Compliance with appellate orders within a specified timeframe.
4. Impact of revisional jurisdiction on the implementation of appellate orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner appealed against an assessment order under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the year 1990-91, seeking a refund of a certain amount. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal, resulting in a refund to the petitioner. However, the respondent did not pass the order of refund within the two-month period as required by Rule 35 of the Rules. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to enforce the appellate order without being influenced by a circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The court examined Rule 35, which mandates that the assessing authority must give effect to the appellate order within two months and provide the refund due to the assessee. The court clarified that the assessing authority cannot delay the refund pending the exercise of revisional power under section 20 of the Act.

The court emphasized that the intention of Rule 35 is clear - the assessing authority must implement the order passed on appeal without waiting for the revision period. The court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment but noted a distinguishing feature where the revisional authority had already issued a notice to the assessee. In the present case, no such notice was issued, leading the court to conclude that the respondent must comply with Rule 35 and implement the appellate order within the specified timeframe of two months from receipt.

The court directed the respondent to give effect to the appellate order without considering the circular that did not defer the respondent from acting under Rule 35. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance with appellate orders and the obligation of the assessing authority to adhere to the provisions of the relevant rules despite the pendency of revision proceedings.