2024 (5) TMI 663 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

VAT judgment review petition dismissed as no apparent error found under Section 32(2) AP VAT Act 2005

M/s. ACME Fitness private Limited Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Commercial Tax Department, Amaravathi.

The AP HC dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment under Section 32(2) of the AP VAT Act, 2005. The court held that no apparent error existed on ... Jurisdiction - power of revision under Section 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer [2023 (11) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] on considering various pronouncements on the subject, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the gist on the scope of review, holding that 'An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.' There are no apparent error in the Judgment under challenge in review petition. No case for review is made out - The Review Petition is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Power of Revision u/s 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.2. Applicability of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad v. Indo National Limited.3. Scope of Review Jurisdiction.Summary:Issue 1: Power of Revision u/s 32(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005The review petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. II Division, Vijayawada's Order of Assessment dated 30.09.2019, which imposed tax @14.5% on certain goods. The Deputy Commissioner's revised order dated 27.01.2021 was contested in W.P. No. 20460 of 2021. The writ petition was disposed of on 20.09.2021, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate Tribunal within a fortnight, subject to a pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax. The court observed that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had the power of revision u/s 32(2) of the AP VAT Act, as the issue had not been decided by the Appellate Tribunal.Issue 2: Applicability of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad v. Indo National LimitedThe petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) lacked the power of revision u/s 32(2) of the AP VAT Act, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad v. Indo National Limited. The court noted that the cited judgment was not applicable because the issue before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had not been decided by the Appellate Tribunal. The court found no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Deputy Commissioner's actions.Issue 3: Scope of Review JurisdictionThe review petitioner claimed that the issue had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal at Telangana State and thus warranted a review. However, the court was not convinced, stating that no apparent error of law or fact was demonstrated in the judgment under review. The court emphasized that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be an appeal in disguise. The principles for review jurisdiction, as summarized in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, were cited to support the decision. The court concluded that no case for review was made out and dismissed the review petition.Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were also closed in consequence.