9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the penalty orders dated March 30, 2005 passed by the first respondent for the year 2000-01 in purported exercise of the power under section 7-A(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the Act ). In the impugned order, the first respondent having referred to the final assessment orders, observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the exemption on the said turnover and to impose tax and penalty. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the first respondent has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The question is not res integra but squarely covered by the decision rendered by this court in Sanmathi Udyog v. Commercial Tax Officer [2007] 6 VST 507 (AP) [App]; [2000] 30 APSTJ 141 wherein this court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel based on section 14(4-C) of the Act, which lays down that the power conferred by sub-section (4-C) on the assessing authority may be exercised by any of the authorities higher than the assessing authority including the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional errors, has been rejected. This court took the view that exercise of the power under sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
