9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner challenged it by way of appeal before the second respondent; by order dated December 30, 2008, for years 2002-03 and 2004-05, he set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal by the first respondent; this order was received by the first respondent on February 18, 2009; the first respondent, without making any further investigation and enquiry as directed by the second respondent, completed the reassessment and confirmed the levy of tax, by order dated August 31, 2012; that the said order of reassessment ought to have been passed within a period of three years from the date of receipt of such order by the first respondent, i.e., on or before February 17, 2012 as mandated by section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; that the reassessment order passed by the first respondent is barred by limitation; that the order of the first respondent was again challenged before the second respondent in appeal and a specific plea of bar of limitation was raised before the second respondent; but the second respondent, by order dated November 9, 2012, rejected the said plea of limitation and remanded the matter back to the first respondent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; the first petitioner challenged it by way of appeal before the second respondent; by order dated December 30, 2009, for years 2002-03 to 2006-07, he set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal by the first respondent; this order was received by the first respondent on February 10, 2009; the first respondent, without making any further investigation and enquiry as directed by the second respondent, completed reassessment and confirmed the levy of tax by order dated August 31, 2012; the order of the reassessment ought to have been passed within a period of three years from the date of receipt of such order by the first respondent, i.e., on or before February 10, 2012, as mandated by section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005; the reassessment order passed by the first respondent is barred by limitation; the order of first respondent was again challenged before the second respondent in appeal and a specific plea of bar of limitation was raised before the second respondent; but the second respondent, by order dated November 9, 2012, rejected the said plea of limitation and remanded the matter back to the first respondent to cause a thorou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity under this Act for any reason the period between the date of such order 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." Section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 enacts: "24A. Limitation in respect of certain assessments or reassessments ordered.-Notwithstanding anything in sections 14 and 20 where an assessment, reassessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment is made in respect of an assessment or any person, in pursuance or in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 19, section 20, section 21, section 22 or section 23 or in an order of any court in a proceeding, otherwise than by way of appeal or revision under this Act, such assessment, reassessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment shall be made within three years from the date of receipt of such order by the assessing or revising authority, as the case may be." Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, reads as follows: "21.(4) The authority pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng or direction contained in an order under section 19. In such a situation only section 24A is attracted. Section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 would apply only for normal assessment made for the first time by the assessing officer, but where an order of assessment of the assessing authority is set aside in appeal by the appellate authority under the Act, and de novo assessment is directed in pursuance of or in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, only section 37 is attracted In this view of the matter, it is clear that in the impugned orders, the second respondent had incorrectly relied upon section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 21(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 to sustain the orders of reassessment made by the first respondent. We are of the view that the orders of reassessment passed by the first respondent are beyond the period of three years from the date of receipt of the orders of the second respondent in all the cases, and therefore, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the said orders. In K. Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
