Court quashes excessive tax notice, allows partial turnover proceedings, denies Supreme Court appeal.

The court quashed the notice proposing to tax an additional turnover of Rs. 53,08,954.83 as it was beyond the jurisdiction and time limitation of the Commercial Tax Officer. However, the proceedings for the turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01 were permitted to proceed within the allowable period after excluding certain time periods. The writ petition was partially allowed, and the request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice dated 29th August 1979 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction and time limitation for assessing escaped turnover.
3. Inclusion of additional turnover in the taxable turnover beyond the prescribed period.
4. Exclusion of time period under sub-section (7) of section 14.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Dated 29th August 1979:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of steel products and a registered dealer, challenged the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer on 29th August 1979. This notice proposed to levy tax on an escaped turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01 and an additional turnover of Rs. 53,08,954.83. The petitioner contended that this notice was barred by time and without jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction and Time Limitation for Assessing Escaped Turnover:
The main contention was whether the notice proposing to include Rs. 53,08,954.83 in the taxable turnover for the first time on remand was barred by time under sub-section (4-A) of section 14 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. The Act mandates that any assessment or levy under sub-section (4) must be made within four years from the date on which any order of assessment or levy was served on the dealer. The original assessment order was served on 12th March 1975, and any proceeding under section 14(4) should have been completed by 12th March 1979. The impugned notice dated 29th August 1979 was beyond this period, making it barred by time.

3. Inclusion of Additional Turnover Beyond the Prescribed Period:
The Commercial Tax Officer's notice proposed to include an additional turnover of Rs. 53,08,954.83, which was found to have been wrongly exempted. The court held that the proposal to include this amount for the first time on 29th August 1979 was barred by time. The Appellate Tribunal's remand order was confined to the turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01, and did not empower the Commercial Tax Officer to bring any other turnover to tax. The inclusion of Rs. 53,08,954.83 was made after the period of four years envisaged by sub-section (4-A) of section 14, and thus, the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue such a notice beyond the prescribed period.

4. Exclusion of Time Period Under Sub-section (7) of Section 14:
Sub-section (7) of section 14 allows for the exclusion of the period between the date of an assessment and the date on which it has been set aside by a competent authority in computing the period of four years for making any fresh assessment. The court noted that the period between the additional assessment order dated 19th March 1976 and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 14th July 1978 should be excluded. Consequently, the assessment of the escaped turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01 was within the permissible period after excluding the intervening period. However, this exclusion did not apply to the additional turnover of Rs. 53,08,954.83, which was not part of the original proceedings under sub-section (4).

Conclusion:
The court quashed the notice in so far as it proposed to bring to tax the sum of Rs. 53,08,954.83, declaring it barred by time and beyond the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer. However, the proceedings regarding the turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01 were allowed to continue within the permissible period after excluding the time as envisaged by sub-section (7) of section 14. The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part, and the oral request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected.

---