Revisional discretion and natural justice: deferment power is limited to the Commissioner, and enhancement requires a hearing.

Section 32(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 confers discretion to defer revisional proceedings only on the Commissioner, not on other revisional authorities acting under section 32(2), because the statutory reference to "Commissioner" was not broadened by implication. The revisional assessment was also unsustainable because the tax liability was enhanced without granting the assessee a personal hearing; where revision results in a substantial enhancement, reasonable opportunity and natural justice require that hearing ordinarily be afforded before the order is passed. The impugned revisional assessment was therefore set aside, leaving fresh action open in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the discretion to defer revisional proceedings under section 32(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is available to revisional authorities other than the Commissioner; (ii) Whether the revisional assessment enhancing the tax liability could be sustained despite denial of a personal hearing to the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the discretion to defer revisional proceedings under section 32(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is available to revisional authorities other than the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 32(1) confers revisional power on the Commissioner, while section 32(2) extends that revisional power to specified subordinate authorities for the cases covered by that sub-section. Section 32(5), however, uses the expression "Commissioner" in conferring the discretion to defer proceedings where a pending appeal or other proceeding before the High Court or Supreme Court involves a question of law having a direct bearing on the order in question. Reading sections 32(1), 32(2), 2(8) and 3A together, the expression "Commissioner" refers to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes appointed under the Act, and not to every authority permitted to exercise revisional power under section 32(2). The statutory language did not justify expanding that expression to include other revisional officers.

Conclusion: The discretion under section 32(5) is available only to the Commissioner and not to other authorities exercising revisional power under section 32(2); this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional assessment enhancing the tax liability could be sustained despite denial of a personal hearing to the assessee.

Analysis: Although section 32 does not expressly provide for a personal hearing, the revisional order resulted in a substantial enhancement of tax liability and the assessee had repeatedly sought an opportunity to explain its objections. In such circumstances, the requirements of reasonable opportunity and natural justice applied. The court relied on the principle that where an assessment is proposed to be enhanced in revision, an opportunity of being heard should ordinarily be afforded before the order is passed. Since no personal hearing was granted, the revisional order was rendered unsustainable.

Conclusion: The denial of a personal hearing vitiated the revisional order, which could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional assessment was set aside and the matter was left open for fresh action in accordance with law, with liberty to seek deferment only before the Commissioner if a fresh revision is undertaken.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a special discretion on a specified authority by name, that discretion cannot be extended by implication to other authorities merely because they exercise related revisional powers, and a substantial enhancement in revision must ordinarily be preceded by a reasonable opportunity of hearing consistent with natural justice.

---