Works-contract valuation and natural justice: absent books, rule 6(3)(ii) applied, and successor revision without oral hearing stood.

Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 applies where, in a works contract, the value of goods cannot be ascertained from the dealer's accounts; the assessee's failure to produce books despite repeated opportunities justified its application, and the challenge failed. A revisional order is not invalid merely because it was passed by a successor-Deputy Commissioner on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by a predecessor, since no fresh notice was statutorily required and written objections had been filed. In taxation matters, a personal hearing is not indispensable where written representation is sufficient and no prejudice is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority was justified in applying rule 6(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 where the assessee failed to produce the books of account and the value of works contract goods was not ascertainable from the accounts; (ii) Whether the final revisional order was vitiated because it was passed by a successor-Deputy Commissioner on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by his predecessor without an oral hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority was justified in applying rule 6(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 where the assessee failed to produce the books of account and the value of works contract goods was not ascertainable from the accounts.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be exercised where the original assessment was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Rule 6(3)(ii) governed works contracts where the value of goods was not ascertainable from the dealer's accounts. The finding recorded by the Tribunal was that the assessee did not produce the books of account despite repeated opportunities, and the alleged loss of records was not substantiated. In a revision under section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the High Court would not interfere with such factual findings.

Conclusion: The application of rule 6(3)(ii) was held to be valid and the challenge on this ground failed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the final revisional order was vitiated because it was passed by a successor-Deputy Commissioner on the basis of a show-cause notice issued by his predecessor without an oral hearing.

Analysis: There was no statutory provision requiring the revisional authority to issue a fresh notice merely because the predecessor had initiated the revision. The objections of the assessee were on record, and the decision-making process was based on the notice and the written replies. Principles of natural justice are flexible and, in taxation matters, an opportunity to make a written representation can be sufficient; prejudice must also be shown before invalidating the order. No prejudice was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The successor-Deputy Commissioner was competent to pass the revisional order, and the absence of a personal hearing did not vitiate the proceedings, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisional and appellate challenges failed, and the connected writ petition seeking stay also fell with the dismissal of the tax revision cases.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the value of works-contract goods is not ascertainable from the dealer's accounts, rule 6(3)(ii) applies, and a revisional order passed by a successor authority on the basis of an existing show-cause notice and written objections is not invalid absent a statutory mandate for a fresh oral hearing or demonstrated prejudice.

---