Penalty proceedings may begin before revised assessment ends, so long as reasonable opportunity is given before penalty is imposed.

Under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, penalty proceedings could be initiated before completion of a revised assessment, because the statutory scheme did not require assessment and penalty to be sequential. A notice proposing penalty was only prima facie and did not amount to a final finding, while the requirement remained that the dealer receive a reasonable opportunity before penalty was imposed. The allegation that the penalty order was ante-dated also failed, as suspicion from delayed service was insufficient without clear proof. The challenge therefore failed and the penalty action was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, penalty proceedings could be initiated and notice issued before the revised assessment was finally completed, and whether assessment and penalty had to be sequential rather than simultaneous. (ii) Whether the penalty order was liable to be invalidated on the allegation that it was ante-dated.

Issue (i): Whether, under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, penalty proceedings could be initiated and notice issued before the revised assessment was finally completed, and whether assessment and penalty had to be sequential rather than simultaneous.

Analysis: Section 14(2) and section 14(4) contemplated that, while making a best judgment assessment or a revised assessment, the assessing authority could also direct payment of penalty as specified in section 14(8). Section 14(4-B) only required a reasonable opportunity before penalty was levied. The statutory scheme did not require the assessing authority first to complete the revised assessment and only thereafter commence penalty proceedings. A notice proposing penalty was only a prima facie communication and did not amount to a concluded finding. The court also held that the earlier decision relied upon by the assessee did not lay down any contrary rule, but turned on its own facts where adequate opportunity had been lacking.

Conclusion: The penalty notice and penalty proceedings were valid even though issued before finalisation of the revised assessment, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty order was liable to be invalidated on the allegation that it was ante-dated.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found only a suspicion arising from the delayed service of the orders, but no clear evidence to establish that the order had ally been passed later and ante-dated to defeat limitation. The court agreed with that assessment and also noted that the delay in service, though unsatisfactory, did not by itself prove ante-dating.

Conclusion: The allegation of ante-dating was not proved and did not vitiate the penalty order.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permitted simultaneous assessment and penalty action, and the factual challenge to the date of the order was not established, so the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, penalty proceedings may be initiated before completion of revised assessment, provided the dealer is given a reasonable opportunity before penalty is imposed.

---