2017 (3) TMI 1691 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Converting, absorbing and regularising the petitioner s services in an equivalent category post with all consequential benefits - The stand taken by the authorities that the petitioner could not be considered for such absorption and regularisation by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 was dealt with on merits and rejected by the Tribunal - Held that - The manner in which the Commercial Tax Authorities and more particularly, the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh, dealt with the petitioner s case pursuant to the order dated 19.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.12567 of 2009 leaves this Court with no option but to set aside the proceedings dated 30.10.2012 of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh, and remit the matter to him for consideration of the whole issue afresh - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's prayer to set aside proceedings of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh.
2. Consideration of petitioner's services for conversion, absorption, and regularization.
3. Tribunal's previous order and directions for reconsideration.
4. Commissioner's non-application of mind and erroneous approach.
5. Contradictory stance of Commercial Tax Authorities regarding vacancies and regularizations.
6. Court's decision to set aside the Commissioner's proceedings and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to challenge the proceedings of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30.10.2012, by filing O.A.No.1410 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking relief.

2. The petitioner's main contention was to have his services converted, absorbed, and regularized in an equivalent category post with all consequential benefits, based on G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.02.1991. This request stemmed from the petitioner's claim that he should be considered for absorption as per the earlier Tribunal's order, which had rejected the authorities' reliance on G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994.

3. The Tribunal's previous order in O.A.No.12567 of 2009 directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.02.1991 and a Circular Memo dated 06.05.1994. However, the Commissioner's subsequent proceedings of 30.10.2012 failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions, indicating a lack of proper consideration and application of mind.

4. The Commissioner's repeated reliance on G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, despite the Tribunal's explicit directions to consider the petitioner's case under G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 04.02.1991, showcased a flawed and erroneous approach. This failure to apply the correct policy and legal framework led the High Court to set aside the Commissioner's proceedings.

5. The Commercial Tax Authorities' contradictory stance regarding the existence of vacancies for regularizing services, as highlighted in the case of other Data Entry Operators, raised concerns about the consistency and fairness of their decision-making process. This inconsistency further underscored the need for a fresh and thorough consideration of the petitioner's case.

6. In light of the Commissioner's flawed handling of the petitioner's case and the Tribunal's oversight in dismissing the O.A., the High Court intervened to set aside both the Tribunal's order and the Commissioner's proceedings. The Court directed the Commissioner to reexamine the entire issue afresh, emphasizing the need for a prompt resolution within four weeks from the date of the Court's order. The Writ Petition was allowed accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party.