1996 (7) TMI 518 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court dismisses tax revision case as time-barred under Central Sales Tax rules.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the tax revision case, ruling that the revision order challenging a Deputy Commissioner's decision was ... - Issues:1. Limitation period for exercising revisional power under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. Conflict between the limitation periods under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.3. Applicability of limitation period prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Rules to revision orders.Analysis:The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dealt with a tax revision case where the State was the petitioner challenging the revision order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The core issue was whether the revision order dated February 27, 1981, was barred by limitation. The State contended that the period of limitation under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act applied, while the respondent argued that the limitation prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act and its Rules governed the revision.The Court analyzed the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, specifically section 9(2), which empowers the authorities to assess, reassess, and collect tax under the general sales tax law of the State. The Court noted that the exercise of power under this provision is subject to the provisions of the CST Act and the Rules made thereunder. Additionally, the Court examined rule 14-A(8) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, which deals with escaped assessment or under-assessment of turnover by the assessing authority within specified time limits.Furthermore, the Court compared the limitation period prescribed under sub-rule (8) of rule 14-A with the period of limitation under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the APGST Act. It highlighted the difference in the starting point of limitation under the two statutes, with the Central Rules running from the expiry of the relevant year and the APGST Act starting from the date of service of the assessment order on the dealer.Ultimately, the Court held that since the revision power under section 9(2) of the CST Act is subject to the Central Act and Rules, the limitation period specified in rule 14-A(8)(b) applied to the revision order in question. As the Deputy Commissioner's order was passed on February 27, 1981, which exceeded the four-year limitation period from the expiry of the relevant year (March 31, 1973), the Court concluded that the revision order was barred by limitation.Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax revision case, upholding the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and emphasizing that the revision order was invalid due to being time-barred.