1994 (4) TMI 294 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court clarifies revision rights under sales tax law

State of Andhra Pradesh Versus TG. Lakshmaiah Setty & Sons

State of Andhra Pradesh Versus TG. Lakshmaiah Setty & Sons - [1994] 94 STC 190 (SC), 1994 AIR 2377, 1994 (2) Suppl. SCC 386, 1994 (3) JT 367, 1994 (2) ... Issues:1. Maintainability of revision under section 20(2) at the instance of the assessee.Detailed Analysis:The case involved appeals related to different assessments under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, concerning the classification of 'cotton lint' for taxation purposes. The respondent-assessee, a registered dealer, sought revision of assessments made under section 5(1) of the Act, based on a High Court decision classifying cotton lint as 'cotton waste' for taxation at a lower rate. The Deputy Commissioner initially dismissed the revisions, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) allowed them, directing reassessment under a specific entry of the First Schedule.The primary issue revolved around the maintainability of a revision under section 20(2) of the Act at the instance of the assessee. Section 20 provided for revision by specified authorities, including the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, but did not explicitly grant the right to the assessee to seek revision. The Act granted the dealer the right to appeal against prejudicial orders or proceedings, indicating a specific remedy for the assessee through appeals or revisions to the Appellate Tribunal.The judgment referred to a Privy Council decision on income tax assessments, emphasizing that statutory provisions determine the rights and remedies available to the assessee. The Court highlighted that section 20's suo motu revisional power was exclusively for specified authorities and not for the assessee to invoke. Previous High Court judgments in Andhra Pradesh had also held that section 20 did not provide a right of revision at the instance of the assessee, reinforcing the principle that assessments must be challenged through appeals or revisions as per the Act.The Tribunal's reliance on a previous Division Bench decision was deemed erroneous, as it incorrectly interpreted the Commissioner's power to revise assessments under section 20 at the instance of the assessee. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in rejecting the revision by the State, affirming that the assessee must follow the remedies provided in the Act and does not have the right to seek revision under section 20. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court and STAT orders, and restoring the Deputy Commissioner's orders, with no costs awarded.