2005 (9) TMI 594 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petition challenging show cause notice dismissed for being within jurisdiction. Respondent's authority upheld.

Ankit Packaging Limited Versus Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad

Ankit Packaging Limited Versus Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad - [2006] 148 STC 578 (AP) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction to issue a second show cause notice.2. Prematurity and maintainability of the writ petition.3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the APGST Act.4. Limitation period for revisional proceedings.5. Prohibition of multiple revisions on the same order.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction to Issue a Second Show Cause Notice:The petitioner challenged the second show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, issued by the Additional Commissioner (CT-Legal), Hyderabad, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the respondent lacked the authority to revise the same order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dated June 19, 2001, twice on the same set of facts. The court found that the APGST Act does not prohibit the initiation of proceedings to revise the order of the appellate authority on another ground if the requirements of Section 20 are satisfied. The court held that the respondent had the power to issue the second show cause notice as it was well within the four-year limitation period prescribed under Section 20(3) of the APGST Act.2. Prematurity and Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The respondent contended that the writ petition was premature and not maintainable as it was filed against a show cause notice. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that if the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of jurisdiction was correct, it would suffer grave prejudice and injury from an order passed without jurisdiction. The court held that where the threat of prejudicial action is wholly without jurisdiction, a person cannot be asked to wait for the injury to occur before seeking the court's protection. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.3. Interpretation of Section 20 of the APGST Act:The petitioner argued that Section 20 of the APGST Act did not allow for revisional powers to be exercised more than once on the same set of facts. The court examined Section 20, which allows the Commissioner to call for and examine records and initiate proceedings to revise, modify, or set aside orders if they are prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The court found that the statute does not prohibit multiple revisions on different grounds within the prescribed limitation period. The court held that the respondent had the authority to issue the second show cause notice as it was within the statutory period of four years.4. Limitation Period for Revisional Proceedings:The petitioner cited the judgment in Subba Rao's case to argue that revisional powers must be exercised within the prescribed period of limitation. The court distinguished this case, noting that the impugned show cause notice was issued within the four-year limitation period from the date of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order. The court held that the limitation period was satisfied, and the second show cause notice was valid.5. Prohibition of Multiple Revisions on the Same Order:The petitioner relied on judgments in Panduranga Rice Mills' case and Manepalli Venkatanarayana's case to argue that revisional powers could only be exercised once on the same order. The court found that these judgments were not applicable as no final order had been passed by the revisional authority pursuant to the first show cause notice. Therefore, the earlier revision proceedings were deemed to continue and had not attained finality. The court held that the respondent was not precluded from issuing a second show cause notice on another ground.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the second show cause notice dated March 1, 2005, was within jurisdiction and maintainable. The petitioner was given 15 days to submit objections to the show cause notice, which the respondent would consider and pass orders on merits. No costs were awarded.