TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e concerns are said to carry on business in publication of literary books, etc. The fourth respondent passed an order of assessment, for the year 2001-02, on June 26, 2004 levying tax on the first sale of greeting cards for Rs. 3,460 and on paper for Rs. 2,69,635. After deducting the tax paid of Rs. 23,155, the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance tax of Rs. 2,49,940. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent who, by order dated October 13, 2004, set aside the assessment order in part and remanded the matter back to the fourth respondent. The third respondent held that the estimated value of paper was Rs. 24,07,454 and not Rs. 33,70,435 as estimated by the assessing authority. To this extent, the assessment order was found to be incorrect and the fourth respondent-Commercial Tax Officer was directed to adopt the correct figures and pass orders afresh. Aggrieved by the order of the third respondent, to the extent he had confirmed the order of the fourth respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT. From the appeal memorandum, in Form II under rule 38, it is evident that the petitioner disputed the turnover of Rs. 24,07,45....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinting these textbooks, the petitioner had purchased raw material, i.e., paper, ink, etc., from persons other than registered dealers which attracted tax under section 6A of the Act, that calculation of purchase value of paper at 40 per cent. of the text book value was based on local enquiries made by the assessing authority, that there was no calculation or arithmetical error committed by the assessing authority in arriving at the purchase turnover and, when there was no tax element in the purchase turnover, no deduction towards tax element was required to be allowed by adopting the method of calculation suggested by the third respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The second respondent concluded that the third respondent had erred in directing deduction of tax on the element embedded in the purchase turnover by adopting a particular formula. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the order of the original authority restored. It is this order of the second respondent dated September 29, 2008 which is under challenge in this writ petition. The only ground urged in challenge thereto is that the order of the third respondent could not have been revise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nner of inspection of their premises, to certain criminal cases which they claim were illegally foisted, etc. As they have no relevance to the issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition, it is wholly unnecessary for us to deal with them. The only question which necessitates examination is whether the second respondent had acted beyond his jurisdiction in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner pending adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the STAT, Visakhapatnam which we are informed has now been numbered as T.A. No. 377 of 2009. Section 20(1) of the Act enables the Commissioner to suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any officer subordinate to it, if such order or proceeding recorded is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Under section 20(2) the powers conferred under section 20(1) can also be exercised by the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, etc., in case the order passed or proceeding recorded is by an authority subordinate to them. Section 20(2A) prohibits exercise of the power of revision in respect of any issue or question which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be held to be confined to that particular order and in relation to another assessment year, the fact may be different. But, if the issue or question relates to a point of law, the intention of the Legislature appears to be that the assessee should not be vexed on such question again and again. As indicated hereinbefore if a question or issue decided by the Appellate Tribunal is in conflict with the decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court, naturally, the latter will prevail. But unless so done, the Commissioner, on a plain reading of the aforementioned provisions, must be held to be bound by such decision of the Tribunal on question of law. A liberal meaning has normally to be attributed while interpreting a statute." (emphasis Here italicised. supplied) The law laid down by the Full Bench in Indo National Ltd. [2004] 136 STC 586 (AP); [2001] 33 APSTJ 206, as is evident from the afore-extracted observations, is that, if the question or issue is of a fact, the same may be confined to that particular order but, if the issue or question related to a point of law, the intention of the Legislature appeared to be that the assessee should not be vexed on such a question a....