2013 (2) TMI 658 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Ex parte assessment order - whether orders of reassessment passed by the first respondent beyond the period of three years from the date of receipt by him of the respective orders of the appellate authority (second respondent) (remitting the matter to the first respondent) as required under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 are barred by limitation? Held that - Sub-clause (ii) of section 153(3) could not be understood as empowering the High Court to give a direction to the authority under the Act to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Orders of the first respondent as confirmed by the second respondent are barred by limitation prescribed under section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and hence, are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders dated November 9, 2012 of the second respondent, to the extent he directed the first respondent to make de novo assessments, is quashed and the first respondent is restrained from proceeding any further in the matter.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bar of Limitation in Reassessment Orders
2. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent in Directing De Novo Assessments
3. Applicability of Relevant Sections of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bar of Limitation in Reassessment Orders:
The petitioners contended that the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent were beyond the statutory period of three years from the date of receipt of the appellate orders, as mandated by Section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that these reassessment orders were therefore barred by limitation. This contention was raised before the second respondent, who erroneously rejected it.

2. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent in Directing De Novo Assessments:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent, who directed the first respondent to conduct a thorough enquiry and pass orders de novo. They argued that this direction was unsustainable and without jurisdiction, as it effectively conferred jurisdiction on the first respondent to pass orders beyond the limitation period, contrary to the statutory provisions. The court agreed with the petitioners, noting that the second respondent had incorrectly relied on Section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, instead of the relevant Sections 24A and 37, respectively.

3. Applicability of Relevant Sections of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005:
The court analyzed the statutory provisions and concluded that Section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, applies only when the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercises revisional powers and such an order is set aside by a court or competent authority. It does not apply to cases where an assessment order is set aside in appeal by the appellate authority, where Section 24A is applicable. Similarly, Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, applies to normal assessments made for the first time, while Section 37 applies to de novo assessments directed by an appellate authority.

Conclusion:
The court held that the reassessment orders passed by the first respondent were beyond the period of three years from the date of receipt of the appellate orders, making them barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. The second respondent's orders directing de novo assessments were quashed, and the first respondent was restrained from proceeding further in the matter. The writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were awarded.