2003 (3) TMI 687 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging common order dated October 1, 1994 in CCT's Procs. No. L.V(1)370/1994 for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

Analysis:

The judgment involved two appeals filed by the same assessee challenging a common order dated October 1, 1994, in CCT's Procs. No. L.V(1)370/1994 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The appellant was a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and the final assessment was made based on gross and net turnovers for both years. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanded the assessments on disputed turnovers related to transport charges and sales tax on gunny/HDPE bags sold with cement. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes sought to revise the remittal order and issued directions to the Commercial Tax Officer for reassessment. The Commissioner concluded that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order need not be set aside but directed the Commercial Tax Officer to follow certain guidelines in the interest of revenue. The appellant challenged this order through two special appeals. The primary argument was that the Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(1) was not justified as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order was not prejudicial to the revenue's interests.

The Court analyzed the powers of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 20 of the Act, which allowed for revision of orders prejudicial to revenue interests. The Commissioner's suo motu powers enabled him to examine subordinate authorities' orders and initiate proceedings if prejudicial to revenue. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner could exercise these powers independently, without needing a prima facie view of prejudice to revenue. The Commissioner's actions in this case, including summoning records, issuing notices, and hearing the assessee, were found to be in line with section 20(1) requirements. The Court noted that the Commissioner's decision to uphold the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order and direct the Commercial Tax Officer to follow guidelines indicated no cause for concern to the appellant.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed both appeals, directing the Commercial Tax Officer to complete reassessment promptly for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The judgment highlighted the proper exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and affirmed the validity of the directions given for reassessment.