1987 (11) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tition is that a writ of prohibition be issued to the Commercial Tax Officer, Khammam, respondent No. 1 herein, from reopening the assessment and making a fresh assessment for the year 1979-80 pursuant to the alleged direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Warangal, respondent No. 2 herein. 3.. Writ Petition No. 2718 of 1983 also relates to the sales tax assessment year 1980-81 and the prayer is identical to the one in W.P. No. 2716 of 1983. 4.. Writ Petition No. 5174 of 1983 relates to the sales tax assessment year 1981-82 and the prayer is to quash the assessment order dated 31st May, 1983 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Khammam, respondent No. 1 herein. 5.. The petitioner is a partnership firm carryi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notices on 8th September, 1982 for the assessment year 1979-80, and on 31st August, 1982 for the assessment year 1980-81 requiring the petitioner to show cause why a fresh assessment should not be made for these two years denying the claim for exemption from payment of purchase tax which was allowed in the original assessments. In the show cause notice for each of the two years, reference was made to the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Warangal, respondent No. 2, dated 15th May, 1982 that the petitioner was not entitled to claim such exemption. As soon as these two show cause notices were received by the petitioner for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 writ petitions were filed to prohibit the making of fresh assessments. As soo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), who reportedly passed the orders in revision under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (for short, "the Act"). In the counter filed by the first respondent there is no denial of the allegation made by the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of any order passed by the second respondent in revision and if such an order was passed behind the back of the petitioner it violated the principles of natural justice. 9.. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Venkatram Reddy, submitted that so far as the proposal to make fresh assessments for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 are concerned, it is not open to the first respondent to make any fresh assessments as the order a....