1993 (3) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue proceedings without assessment and demand notice.
2. Validity of the amendment to section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act with retrospective effect.
3. Whether the petitioners can seek a direction not to encash the cheques issued by them after admitting to suppressed transactions in their books of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the action of the 1st respondent in collecting tax by cheques without assessment proceedings, alleging it to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners contended that the 1st respondent lacked jurisdiction to assess or collect tax without proper assessment and demand notice. They relied on precedents like Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer and McDowell & Co. Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer to support their argument. The Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes argued that section 4 was amended with retrospective effect, which was not considered in the previous judgment. The main issue was whether the Assistant Commissioner had the jurisdiction to initiate the impugned proceedings without proper assessment.

2. The Court referred to previous judgments regarding the amendment to section 4 of the Act. It was noted that the amendment rectified only part of the defect highlighted in earlier decisions, and did not address the issue of concurrent jurisdiction on several officers in the same area, which was deemed violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the retrospective effect of the amendment brought in by Act No. 18 of 1985, which was not considered in the previous judgment. The judgment in McDowell & Co. Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer was deemed per incuriam as it did not account for the relevant provision in the amendment. Consequently, the contention that section 4 was struck down in the previous judgment was found to be unsustainable.

3. The petitioners had admitted to suppressing transactions in their books of accounts and had paid the tax through cheques to avoid seizure of stocks and business premises. The Court noted that the petitioners could not seek a direction to prevent the encashment of the cheques after admitting to the suppressed transactions. It was suggested that the petitioners could raise objections before the assessment authorities instead. As a result, both writ petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional issues of the Assistant Commissioner, the validity of the retrospective amendment to section 4, and the petitioners' admission to suppressed transactions affecting their plea to prevent the encashment of cheques.