Special assessment powers for evasion cases upheld where the statute provided guidance and equal appellate remedies.

The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was read as permitting the State to authorise a Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) to assess cases involving suppressed or omitted turnover, because the definition of "assessing authority" and the power to assign local limits supported concurrent assessment jurisdiction. The notification selecting evasion cases was also upheld under Article 14, as it was confined to detected or reported suppression, provided adequate guidance, and left procedure and remedies unchanged from ordinary assessments. Section 5A, which applied a turnover-based classification, was likewise sustained as a valid distinction already accepted by the Court. The assessment machinery and constitutional challenges therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State Government was competent under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to appoint a Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) and authorise him to make assessments in cases of suppressed or omitted transactions; (ii) whether the impugned notification conferring discretion on the Special Commercial Tax Officer to select cases for assessment was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (iii) whether section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was unconstitutional as making an impermissible classification based on turnover.

Issue (i): whether the State Government was competent under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act to appoint a Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) and authorise him to make assessments in cases of suppressed or omitted transactions.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(b) defining "assessing authority" was treated as empowering the State Government, by necessary implication, to authorise persons to make assessments under the Act. Section 4 was read as permitting appointment of commercial tax officers and assignment of local limits. The rules requiring returns to be filed before the assessing authority of the area did not confine assessment power exclusively to that authority. The notification was held to validly create concurrent authority in favour of the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) for cases where suppression or omission of turnover was detected or brought to his notice.

Conclusion: The appointment and jurisdiction of the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions) were valid and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether the impugned notification conferring discretion on the Special Commercial Tax Officer to select cases for assessment was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The notification was held to contain sufficient guidance because the officer could act only in cases involving detected or reported suppression or omission of taxable transactions. The class of assessees was regarded as intelligible and the procedure, appellate remedies, and revisional remedies were the same as in ordinary assessments. The Court found no unequal treatment or uncanalised discretion amounting to hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: The notification did not offend Article 14 and was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether section 5A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was unconstitutional as making an impermissible classification based on turnover.

Analysis: The turnover-based distinction was treated as having already been upheld in an earlier decision of the Court, and no fresh ground was shown to disturb that view. The classification was not found to be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion: Section 5A was held to be valid and the constitutional challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment machinery, the impugned notification, and section 5A all failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and validly issued notification provide a rational basis and sufficient guidance for selecting evasion cases, and where the procedure and remedies remain the same as in ordinary assessments, conferment of special assessment powers does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.

---