TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) had jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 9C of the A. P. Entertainments Tax Act, 1939. (ii) Whether the revisional interference with the appellate order was justified when the assessing authority had not supplied the material relied upon and had not dealt with the assessee's objections.
Issue (i): Whether the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) had jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 9C of the A. P. Entertainments Tax Act, 1939.
Analysis: The revisional power under section 9C is specifically conferred only on the Entertainments Tax Commissioner or the Entertainments Tax Joint Commissioner. An internal administrative allocation of work by the Commissioner could not enlarge or substitute the statutory source of authority. In the absence of valid delegation under the Act, the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) could not assume revisional jurisdiction over the appellate order.
Conclusion: The revisional order was passed without jurisdiction and is unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional interference with the appellate order was justified when the assessing authority had not supplied the material relied upon and had not dealt with the assessee's objections.
Analysis: The assessment was made without furnishing the material relied upon, despite a specific request by the assessee, and the objections raised in reply to the show-cause notice were not considered in any meaningful manner. The appellate authority had therefore rightly treated the assessment as vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity and had only remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Such an open remand order could not be characterised as illegal or irregular so as to warrant suo motu revision.
Conclusion: The appellate order was valid and ought not to have been interfered with in revision.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the revisional orders were set aside, and the appellate remand order restoring fresh adjudication after supply of material and opportunity of hearing stood revived.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only by the authority expressly empowered by statute, and an assessment made without furnishing relied-upon material and without considering objections violates reasonable opportunity and cannot be revised merely because it results in a remand.
TaxTMI 
