9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Appeal No. P/88/2001-2002), to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, wherein he disputed (1) forfeiture of tax of Rs. 7,82,948 and (2) disallowance of set-off of tax of Rs. 3,73,739. The appellate authority, by order dated June 19, 2001, allowed the appeal, granted relief to the petitioner on both the aforesaid items and thereafter the assessing authority passed consequential orders on July 10, 2001 giving effect to the order of the appellate authority. The respondent issued show cause notice dated March 23, 2004 purporting to revise the order of the appellate authority dated June 19, 2001, in respect of one of the two items, relating to forfeiture of excess collection of tax by the petitioner. In reply thereto the petitioner filed its written objections on May 26, 2004. The revision was posted on June 1, 2004 on which date the petitioner's counsel attended the hearing and made his submissions. However, no orders were passed by the respondent in the said revision. A second show cause notice was issued by the respondent on March 1, 2005 proposing to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile interpreting the provisions of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder, were required to strictly abide by its language, and not to give scope for intendment, a second revised show cause notice was issued by him on March 1, 2005, incorporating the item of set-off, for revision. Challenge to the show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, without the petitioner submitting its objections thereto, is contended as an abuse of process of this court. It is stated that the earlier show cause notice for revision dated March 23, 2004 did not discuss the merits of the issue of set-off and therefore the revised show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, proposing to tax the set-off turnover, does not amount to any change of opinion in revising the order. It is stated that since no conclusion had been reached pursuant to the first show cause notice for revision, there is no prohibition in initiating proceedings to revise the order on another ground. We find no merit in the contention of the respondent that the present writ petition, filed against the show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, is premature and not maintainable. The impugned show cause notice dated March 1, 2005 is challenged a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the then revisional authority, and that mere change of office, without there being any new facts on record, did not empower revision proceedings being initiated on the second item also. Learned counsel, placing reliance on the judgments in S. Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore [1967] 19 STC 257 (Mys), S. B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India [1976] 37 STC 425 (SC) and Khimijibhai Mills v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Zone [2001] 122 STC 32 (Karn)[FB], would submit that revision proceedings commence on the issuance of the show cause notice and end on the passing of the final order of revision. Reliance is placed, on two division Bench judgments of this court in Manepalli Venkatanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1959] 10 STC 524 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Panduranga Rice Mill Contractors Co., Gudlavalleru, Krishna District [1997] 24 APSTJ 247, in support of the submission that on issuance of a show cause notice, revisional powers are deemed to have been exercised and such revisional powers can be exercised only once and not repeatedly. It is contended that on the first show cause notice, in revision, having been issued on Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and the date on which it has been so set aside shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in sub-section (3) for the purpose of making a fresh revision, if any, under this section. (6) Where any proceeding under this section has been deferred on account of any stay order granted by the Special Appellate Tribunal in any case, or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the Special Appellate Tribunal or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the order or proceedings in question, the period during which the stay order was in force or such appeal or proceeding was pending shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in this section for the purposes of exercising the power under this section." In Subba Rao's case [1967] 19 STC 257 (Mys), the question which arose for consideration was as to whether the revisional powers, under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, could be exercised by the Commissioner beyond the time-limit of four years prescribed under the Act. The contention advanced was that the period of limitation has to be computed from the date of passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing of the final order under section 22-A as well. In Gurbaksh Singh's case [1976] 37 STC 425 (SC) the question which arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether exercise of the power of the revision, under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, was subject to the period of limitation provided in sub-section (2a) of section 11 or section 11-A of the said Act. The contention urged in the said case was that the revisional authority was required to exercise the revisional power within the period prescribed, that in cases where the orders were other than remand, they could directly exercise the powers and in case the order was of remand for assessment, to the assessing authority, then also the orders were required to be passed within the same period. This contention was rejected and the Supreme Court held that it would be unjust and unreasonable to hold that the bar of limitation for assessment must also continue to run at all stages of proceedings including revisional proceedings. The apex court held that while the statute prescribed the time-limit for the assessee to move in revision, no time-limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls' case [1997] 24 APSTJ 247, a division Bench of this court held that once an order was passed in revision, the Commissioner did not have the power to revise the order of assessment for a second time even if it be on another ground. The division Bench, in Panduranga Rice Mills' case [1997] 24 APSTJ 247, followed an earlier judgment of a division Bench of this court in Manepalli Venkatanarayana's case [1959] 10 STC 524. These judgments are of no avail to the petitioner, as in the case on hand, no final order was passed by the Commissioner in revision, and he is not, therefore, precluded from seeking to revise the same order of the appellate authority, dated June 19, 2001, on another ground. The APGST Act does not prohibit, initiation of proceedings, to revise the order of the appellate authority, on another ground if the requirements of section 20 are satisfied. In the case on hand, the respondent found not only that the first item relating to forfeiture of excess collection of tax was prejudicial to the interests of revenue, but also that the second item relating to set-off of tax of Rs. 3,73,739 required revision and as such issued show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, well wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
