2011 (8) TMI 1045 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the jurisdiction of revisional orders passed by the first respondent under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the limitation period prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act.

Jurisdiction of Revisional Orders:
The petitioner challenged the revisional orders passed by the first respondent on August 31, 2006, on the grounds of jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the first respondent, being a Deputy Commissioner, was not competent to exercise the power of revision as per Rule 44A of the APGST Rules, 1957. Rule 44A specifies that Deputy Commissioners, including Appellate Deputy Commissioners, are subordinate to higher authorities such as the Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioners. Since the first respondent, a Deputy Commissioner, set aside the order passed by the second respondent, who acted based on the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's direction, the jurisdiction of the revisional order was questioned. The court held that the first respondent lacked the jurisdiction to pass the revisional orders, rendering them unsustainable.

Limitation Period under Section 20(3) of the Act:
The petitioner also argued that the revisional order dated August 31, 2006, was beyond the period of limitation specified in section 20(3) of the Act. The petitioner pointed out that the order was communicated to them only on July 20, 2007, which exceeded the prescribed limitation period. However, the court did not delve into this aspect as it found the revisional order to be unsustainable on the grounds of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court did not address the issue of the order being passed beyond the limitation period.

Decision:
In conclusion, the court set aside the revisional orders passed by the first respondent on August 31, 2006, for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Additionally, the consequent orders passed by the second respondent on November 7, 2006, were declared invalid. The writ petitions were allowed without costs.