9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principally two grounds (a) that the revisional orders passed by the first respondent on August 31, 2006 is inherently without jurisdiction and (b) that it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Writ Petition No. 9342 of 2009 pertains to the assessment year 1999-2000 while Writ Petition No. 9343 of 2009 pertains to the assessment year 2000-01. Having regard to the substantive similarity in the factual matrix of these two writ petitions, suffice it to record the facts in W.P. No. 9342 of 2009. The petitioner's husband along with six others incorporated the petitioner-firm in 1994 for the business of securing and executing P.W.D., R and B and other contract w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent took up revision against the original assessment order dated October 23, 2002 and issued show-cause notice in this behalf on May 17, 2004. Pending finalisation of the revision by the first respondent, the second respondent to effectuate the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, dated September 5, 2003, issued the revised assessment order dated May 4, 2005. On learning about the revised assessment order passed by the second respondent on May 4, 2005, the first respondent intending to exercise the revisional power under section 20(2) of the Act, issued a fresh revision show-cause notice dated January 31, 2006 proposing to deny the benefit of exemption allowed to the petitioner on the turnover of ₹ 4,96,17,258 by the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner, contends that the revisional order is unsustainable on account of having been passed beyond the period of limitation specific in section 20(3) of the Act, since it seeks to revise the order dated October 23, 2002 and in view of the fact that the order, as admitted in the counter-affidavit was put in the process of communication to the petitioner only on July 20, 2007 by registered post acknowledgement due. It is also contended that the first respondent was incompetent to exercise the revision power in view of section 20(2) of the Act. Section 20(2) of the Act reads: (2) Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, Commercial Tax Officers, Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and Assistant Commercial Tax Officers are subordinate to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal) or Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal). Rule 44A, therefore, treats that all Deputy Commissioners including Appellate Deputy Commissioners as being subordinate to the Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioners specified in the corresponding entry in column No. 2. Since the first respondent is a Deputy Commissioner, who has set aside the consequent order passed by the second respondent dated May 4, 2005, an order passed in consequence of the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on September 5, 2003, the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
