2014 (9) TMI 1116 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the order dated 18.11.2013 passed in RR No.43/2011-12, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner and consequential effectual order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No./2345/2001-02 (CST) are without jurisdiction - power of coordinate officer - whether coordinate officer is empowered to revise orders of the assessing authority and he can sit over the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and pass a fresh order? Held that - when orders are passed by the assessing authority, i.e. the 1st respondent herein, matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Before the appellate authority, mainly, it was the case of the petitioner that it could not file statutory forms as the same could not be procured before orders were passed by the assessing authority. It was also pleaded that, statutory forms were procured and accordingly (13) G forms, (13) C forms, (10) F forms and (7) H forms and other documentary evidence were filed and condonation of delay was sought. With regard to statutory forms, the appellate authority remitted the matter back to the assessing authority, with a direction to verify the correctness of turnovers covered by statutory forms that would be filed by the petitioner and grant relief to the extent it is eligible, in accordance with the provisions of law. It is true that, consequent to the order passed by the appellate authority, giving benefit of statutory forms, effectual orders are passed, which are also rectified on the representation filed by the petitioner, accepting deferment facility for payment of tax. But, at the same time, when it is noticed by the revisional authority, that certain irregularities are committed by the assessing authority while passing effectual orders, pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the appellate authority, 2nd respondent has invoked powers under Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. From a perusal of the orders passed by the revisional authority, it is clear that concessional rate on the tax allowed on the turnover of ₹ 24,05,520/- was irregular, inasmuch as C forms, which are issued, are anterior to the effective date of registration. Similarly, for turnover of ₹ 1,13,83,834/-, it is alleged that except filing of F forms, petitioner has not filed any other documents, evidencing actual transport/movement of goods and on turnover of ₹ 49,16,426/- which is covered by H forms, it is alleged that petitioner has not filed any other documents evidencing actual export of goods and also failed to file orders placed by foreign buyers on the exports. Even with regard to the allegation of limitation, it is to be noticed that, as the revisional authority has revised the order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010 only, as such, it cannot also be said that suo motu revisional power that was exercised by the 2nd respondent is beyond the period of limitation. Except the allegation of maintainability and jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, petitioner has not controverted any of the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order. Even learned counsel for the petitioner, except the submission on the point of jurisdiction, has not urged any other point. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent has rightly exercised suo motu powers, in revising the order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010. It is to be noticed that though there is statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, petitioner, has approached this Court without availing the same - the order dated 18.11.2013 passed in RR No.43/2011-12, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, and consequential effectual order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No./2345/2001-02 (CST), are valid and legal and it cannot be said that such orders are passed without jurisdiction. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revisional authority's order dated 18.11.2013.
2. Jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to revise the effectual order.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for tax exemptions and concessional rates.
4. Limitation period for exercising revisional powers.
5. Availability of statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revisional Authority's Order:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The revisional authority revised the effectual order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010, due to observed irregularities in the assessment.

2. Jurisdiction of the 2nd Respondent:
The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent, being a coordinate officer, lacked jurisdiction to revise the orders passed by the assessing authority following the appellate authority's remand. The court held that the revisional authority acted within its jurisdiction as the appellate authority's order was a remand for verification of statutory forms, not a final determination on merits.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Tax Exemptions and Concessional Rates:
The revisional authority identified several irregularities:
- Invalid 'C' form for transactions amounting to Rs. 24,05,520/- as the issuing dealer's registration was effective from a later date.
- Lack of additional documents besides 'F' forms to evidence actual transport/movement of goods for a turnover of Rs. 1,13,83,834/-.
- Insufficient documentation for deemed export sales covered by 'H' forms amounting to Rs. 49,16,426/-.
- Incomplete details for export sales amounting to Rs. 9,60,40,045/- based on photocopies of sale invoices and other documents.

The petitioner failed to provide objections or additional documents during the revision proceedings, leading to the confirmation of the revisional authority's findings.

4. Limitation Period for Exercising Revisional Powers:
The court noted that the revisional authority's action was within the limitation period, as the revision targeted the order dated 20.10.2009, rectified on 04.01.2010. The exercise of suo motu revisional power was deemed timely and valid.

5. Availability of Statutory Remedy of Appeal:
The court emphasized that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal but chose to approach the court directly. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction and maintainability, affirming the revisional authority's right to revise the effectual order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity and legality of the revisional authority's order dated 18.11.2013 and the consequential effectual order dated 25.11.2013. The court found that the 2nd respondent acted within jurisdiction and the petitioner failed to utilize the available statutory remedy of appeal. The orders were deemed lawful, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.