TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction under the sales tax enactments to revise the effectual order passed after remand by the appellate authority and whether the impugned revision and consequential demand were valid.
Analysis: The appellate order did not finally conclude the disputed turnover claims on merits but remitted specific issues to the assessing authority for verification of statutory forms and supporting documents. The assessing authority thereafter passed effectual orders and later rectified them. The revisional authority invoked suo motu powers on noticing irregular allowance of concessional rate and exemptions, and the assessee did not file objections or supporting material despite opportunity. In that setting, the revisional exercise was not treated as sitting in appeal over a concluded appellate determination. The challenge based on lack of jurisdiction and limitation was rejected, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy also weighed against interference.
Conclusion: The revisional authority validly exercised jurisdiction under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the impugned orders were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate order remands specific issues for fresh verification and no final adjudication on those issues exists, the assessing authority's fresh order remains open to lawful suo motu revision for jurisdictional or apparent irregularities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
