1974 (7) TMI 102 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds Deputy Commissioner's revisional orders under Central Sales Tax Act, dismissing challenges to assessment orders.

Satyanarayana Srinivas Bung Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's revisional orders under the Central Sales Tax Act, dismissing the petitioner's challenges to assessment orders. ... - Issues:1. Revision of assessment orders by Deputy Commissioner under Central Act.2. Power of Deputy Commissioner to revise orders of the appellate authority.3. Validity of original assessment order under amended Central Act.4. Legality of revision of assessments beyond four years.5. Application of period of limitation in revisional powers.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered firm, challenged the assessment orders by the Commercial Tax Officer under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1963-64. The firm claimed exemption from tax on inter-State sales of certain goods, which was initially disallowed by the Commercial Tax Officer but later allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, the Deputy Commissioner, exercising suo motu powers of revision, issued notices proposing to revise the orders based on an amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act by Act 28 of 1969. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, subject to modifications in tax rates.2. The first contention raised was regarding the Deputy Commissioner's power to revise the appellate order and restore the original assessment order. The court held that under the Central Act and the State Act, the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to call for and examine orders passed by subordinate officers within four years, thus rejecting the argument against the revision of the appellate order.3. The petitioner also argued that the original assessment order was not in accordance with the amended Central Act. However, the court found that there were no changes affecting the taxable point, turnover, or rates for the goods in question under the amended Act. The Deputy Commissioner's decision to disallow the exemption granted by the Assistant Commissioner was upheld as valid under the amended Act, which had retrospective application.4. Another issue raised was the legality of revising assessments beyond four years from the original assessment date. The Deputy Commissioner's exercise of revisional powers within the prescribed time frame was deemed lawful, as the revisional orders were passed within four years from the dates of the appellate orders.5. The argument regarding the application of the period of limitation in revisional powers was dismissed by the court. It clarified that the separate period of limitation prescribed by the State Act for revisional powers was applicable, and the provisions of rule 14-A(11) did not restrict the Deputy Commissioner's revisional authority under the Central Act. The court also addressed contentions related to alteration of tax rates for rice turnover, emphasizing that the Deputy Commissioner's actions were within the scope of revisional powers.In conclusion, all contentions raised by the petitioner were dismissed, and the court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's revisional orders, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petitions with costs.