1998 (6) TMI 557 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a second revision is permissible.
2. Whether the impugned order is barred by limitation.
3. Whether revisional jurisdiction is available to the Commissioner on the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether a second revision is permissible.

The assessee contended that the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had already exercised his power under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and dropped further enquiry. Therefore, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoking powers under section 20(1) of the Act and passing the impugned order amounted to a second revision, which is impermissible in law. The court examined the original records and found no evidence that the Additional Commissioner had exercised powers under section 20(2) and dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes did not find any such order passed by the Additional Commissioner. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no second revision, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed only one order dated April 8, 1996.

Issue 2: Whether the impugned order is barred by limitation.

The assessee argued that the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated April 8, 1996, was belated and barred by limitation, as it was served on the assessee beyond the four-year period prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. [1994] 93 STC 406, which set aside a revisional order served after 10 1/2 months from the date of passing. In this case, the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was passed on April 8, 1996, and served on the assessee on May 17, 1996, resulting in a delay of about five weeks. The court held that this delay was not abnormal and did not vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, the submission regarding limitation was rejected.

Issue 3: Whether revisional jurisdiction is available to the Commissioner on the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.

The assessee contended that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner caused no prejudice to the revenue, and thus, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should not have exercised revisional powers. The court observed that the revisional powers are to be exercised if the order of the lower authority is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order, while remanding the matter, directed the assessing authority to grant exemption to the assessee based on a previous case. This direction could potentially affect the revenue. The court concluded that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction to prevent loss of revenue.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the special appeal, finding no merit in the submissions made by the assessee. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' order was upheld as it was not a second revision, was within the permissible time frame, and was justified to protect the revenue's interest. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.