2024 (7) TMI 460 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to notice of attachment of petitioner s immovable property for recovery of tax under Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 R/w. Section 17-C of APGST Act, 1957 - HELD THAT - Under Section 20 of the APGST Act there is power for the Commissioner to revise, if he finds that the proceedings or orders by the subordinate authorities are prejudicial to the interests of revenue. It is not the petitioner s case that the Commissioner invoked its powers under Section 20 of the APGST Act, might be because the orders of the subordinate authorities were not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is observed that the memo dated 28.07.2010 is not only without jurisdiction but is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice of attachment for recovery of tax under APGST Act, 1957 based on a government memo; Jurisdiction of recovery proceedings under AP Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 R/w. Section 17-C of APGST Act, 1957; Effect of government memo on recovery proceedings; Power of Commissioner to revise orders under APGST Act, 1957; Interpretation of Section 9 and Section 20 of APGST Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the notice of attachment of immovable property for tax recovery under APGST Act, 1957, citing a government memo issued by the Principal Secretary. The petitioner argues that the recovery proceedings were stayed by the government memo, preventing any coercive steps against them until the matter was resolved. The recovery pertains to tax amounts for the financial years 2001-02, 2003-04, and 2004-05. The petitioner's compliance with payment orders and appeal outcomes are detailed, highlighting the history of the case.

For the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the petitioner made representations to the government, leading to the issuance of the memo dated 28.07.2010. The government pleader contends that the recovery proceedings are valid and not beyond the authorities' power, emphasizing that the memo lacks statutory authority. The debate revolves around the impact of the memo on recovery proceedings following final orders under the APGST Act, 1957.

The court examines the memo's legality in light of Section 9 of the APGST Act, 1957, which grants the state government power to notify exemptions or reductions in tax or interest. However, the court clarifies that this provision does not extend to challenging finalized orders under the statute. Additionally, Section 20 empowers the Commissioner to revise orders prejudicial to revenue interests, which was not invoked in this case.

Ultimately, the court rules that the memo dated 28.07.2010 lacks jurisdiction and prejudices revenue interests. It determines that the memo cannot impede tax recovery for the financial years 2003-04 and 2004-05, which have attained finality. Recovery for the financial year 2001-02 is subject to the ongoing case before the court. The writ petition is dismissed for the mentioned financial years, with costs not awarded. Any related pending petitions are to be closed accordingly.