2001 (8) TMI 1341 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the revised show cause notice issued under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1995-96.
2. Jurisdiction of the revising authority to amend or revise the earlier show cause notice.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing the revised show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the revised show cause notice
The petitioner contended that the revised show cause notice issued under section 20 of the APGST Act for the assessment year 1995-96 was pre-determined and tantamount to an adjudication order. The court clarified that if the petitioner deemed the notice as an adjudication order, they could appeal before the STAT. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held that the show cause notice did not necessarily amount to an adjudication order, and the petitioner could avail appeal remedies provided under the APGST Act.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction to amend or revise the show cause notice
The petitioner argued that the revising authority lacked the power to amend or revise the earlier show cause notice. However, the court found no merit in this contention. It was established that the revising authority had the power to raise additional grounds for the proposed revision under section 20 of the APGST Act. The court emphasized that the action of the respondent was in line with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court highlighted that the respondent's action, including raising additional grounds in the revised show cause notice, did not violate principles of natural justice and was permissible under the law.

Issue 3: Compliance with principles of natural justice
The court concluded that the impugned show cause notice was issued in compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. It was noted that the respondent's action of apprising the petitioner about additional grounds for revision was fair and did not violate constitutional principles. The court allowed the petitioner to file an additional reply to the show cause notice, granting them fifteen days for the same. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In summary, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the validity of the revised show cause notice issued under the APGST Act, affirmed the revising authority's jurisdiction to amend the notice, and found the issuance of the notice compliant with principles of natural justice.