TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (10) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudicate the matter in the interests of both parties rather than prolonging the litigation. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The first assessment under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act for the year 1982-83 was made on March 31, 1984, by the Commercial Tax Officer. He subjected the turnover of Rs. 22,47,212 to tax at different rates. As regards the turnover of Rs. 21,14,414 falling under section 5-B, he applied the concessional rate of 4 per cent. No surcharge and additional tax was levied thereon as the assessing authority obviously felt that the total tax liability of the assessee under section 5-B should be computed at the rate of 4 per cent only. This assessment was reopened by the successor assessing authority under section 14(4) and a revised assessment order was passed levying and demanding an amount of Rs. 8,458 towards surcharge. Against this reassessment order dated September 11, 1985, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate authority by order dated January 16, 1987, allowed the appeal following a decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that no surcharge apart from 4 per cent could be levied in respect of the turnover fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court in India Fruits Private Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1988] 68 STC 114. It is this notice issued by the Commissioner that has been challenged in this writ petition. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of the embargo placed by section 20(2-A) of the Act, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to initiate the revision proceedings. We are of the view that this contention is not tenable. Section 20(2-A) enjoins that the power of revision "shall not be exercised in respect of any issue or question which is the subject-matter of an appeal before or which was decided on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under section 21". The bar enacted by sub-section (2-A) of section 20 on the revisional powers exercisable by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner does not apply to the instant case because the Appellate Tribunal has not decided any issue or question in an appeal relating to the petitioner much less the same assessment. In Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [1978] 42 STC 372, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Divan, C.J. and Chennakesav Reddy, J., n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the first contention of the petitioner. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 20(1) on a misconception that the Deputy Commissioner could have lawfully revised the order of assessment dated March 31, 1984. The learned counsel points out that the dropping of the revision by the Deputy Commissioner was in no way illegal or improper. But, on the other hand, if the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded to revise the assessment order dated March 31, 1984, he would have acted without jurisdiction. What the Deputy Commissioner could not have lawfully done, the Commissioner by revising the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot do. The learned counsel elaborates thus: By the time the revision proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, the reassessment was already done by the Commercial Tax Officer by levying surcharge in addition to the tax on a part of the turnover. Thus when the surcharge had already been levied, the question of exercising revisional powers by another authority (may be higher authority) to levy the ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge. Secondly, the force and effect of the appellate order dated January 16, 1987 cannot be ignored by the Commissioner. In our view, so long as the order of the appellate authority stands, no demand for surcharge could be raised or directed to be raised. The desired effect of raising a demand for surcharge can only be brought about by revising the order of the appellate authority. But as the revision notice now stands, there is no such proposal. We, therefore, deem it fit to issue a writ prohibiting the Commissioner from proceeding with the levy of surcharge pursuant to the impugned notice. However, we leave it open to the Commissioner, if he so chooses to initiate fresh proceedings for the purpose of revising the order of the appellate authority dated January 16, 1987. Then we come to the last question-as to the propriety of the proposed levy of additional tax under section 5-A pursuant to the impugned revision. On this point, we are clearly of the view that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to levy or give any direction for the levy of additional tax under section 5-A. The levy of additional tax was not at all proposed by the Deputy Commissioner in the revision no....