9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 840 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the second respondent had acted beyond his jurisdiction in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner pending adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the STAT Visakhapatnam? Held that - The assessment order passed by the fourth respondent related mainly to the turnover of paper of 33, 70, 435 which to the extent of 24, 07, 454 was confirmed in appeal by the third respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is only for the remaining turnover of 9, 62, 981 was the order of the fourth respondent-assessing authority set aside and remanded for consideration afresh. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst to the STAT restricting the turnover under dispute in the appeal only to 24, 07, 454. The second respondent revised the order of the third respondent only on the turnover of 9, 62, 981 and not the turnover of 24, 07, 454 which is the subject-matter of appeal pending adjudication before the STAT. Let alone issues of law even on issues of fact the appeal pending before the STAT has nothing in common with the order of the second respondent dated April 28 2008. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the second respondent's order revising the third respondent's order. 2. Applicability of Section 20(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 3. Jurisdiction of the second respondent during the pendency of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Second Respondent's Order Revising the Third Respondent's Order: The petitioner challenged the second respondent's order dated September 29, 2008, which revised the third respondent's order dated October 13, 2004. The petitioner argued that the revision was arbitrary, illegal, and violated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The second respondent restored the original assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated June 26, 2004, which had been partially set aside by the third respondent. The second respondent concluded that the third respondent had erred in directing the deduction of tax on the element embedded in the purchase turnover by adopting a particular formula. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was set aside, and the order of the original authority was restored. 2. Applicability of Section 20(2A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957: The petitioner contended that the order of the third respondent could not have been revised during the pendency of the appeal before the STAT due to the bar under Section 20(2A) of the Act. Section 20(2A) prohibits the exercise of the power of revision in respect of any issue or question that is the subject-matter of appeal before, or decided on appeal by, the Appellate Tribunal under Section 21. A Full Bench of the court, in Indo National Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, held that the revisional power of the Commissioner is curtailed by Section 20(2A) and that the bar applies to issues of law pending adjudication before the STAT. The court examined whether any issue of law was pending adjudication in the appeal before the STAT and whether the revision jurisdiction under Section 20(2) of the Act had been exercised on the same issue. The court concluded that no common issues of law arose in the appeal pending before the STAT and the impugned order of revision. 3. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent During the Pendency of an Appeal Before the STAT: The court examined whether the second respondent had acted beyond his jurisdiction in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner pending adjudication of the appeal before the STAT. The assessment order related mainly to the turnover of paper of Rs. 33,70,435, of which Rs. 24,07,454 was confirmed in appeal by the third respondent. The petitioner had appealed to the STAT, disputing only the turnover of Rs. 24,07,454. The second respondent revised the order of the third respondent only on the turnover of Rs. 9,62,981 and not the turnover of Rs. 24,07,454, which was the subject-matter of the appeal before the STAT. The court found that the appeal pending before the STAT and the order of the second respondent had no common issues of law or fact. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit. The court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from availing other legal remedies to challenge the impugned order. No costs were awarded.
|
