TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion dated March 11, 2010, and to redress his grievance. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of organic manure developed on plant wastage, namely, neem fruits. The petitioner would submit that organic manure is exempt from tax under entry 26 of the First Schedule read with section 7 of the Act. Relying on a decision of the advance ruling authority, in "M/s. Jyothirmayi Neem Products, Mangalagiri", classifying neem fruit based powder, sold as organic manure, as bio-fertilizers and assessing it to tax at four per cent, the first respondent issued notice dated February 17, 2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the STAT referred to the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, and declared that the products developed from plant based waste, or animal based waste, was organic manure; the order of the STAT in Asian Bio-chemicals, Vijayawada v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2009] 49 APSTJ 30 is binding on the assessing authority; and, since the STAT had not concurred with the Advance Ruling Authority, the order of the assessing authority was illegal. The petitioner would contend that, though the Act provided for an appeal, section 72 of the Act enables an application to be filed before the assessing authority (first respondent) requesting him to set aside the order of assessment, as the said order had caused them material hardship, and had occasioned fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial authority, having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits, proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed on the merits only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is vested with the power of review either by express provision or by necessary implication. (Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2005] 13 SCC 777). A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. (Smt. Dr. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya [1987] 4 SCC 525). The power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. (Patel Narshi T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e powers of the appellate authority/STAT in interfering with, among other orders, an assessment order on the ground that there is a defect or an irregularity in the procedure followed in passing the said order. In view of section 72, an assessment order cannot be set aside by the appellate authority or the STAT for every defect or irregularity in procedure. It is only if such a defect or irregularity in procedure has resulted in an order being passed which has caused material hardship, or has occasioned failure of justice, would interference be justified. For instance when an appeal is preferred, against the order of assessment, section 72 would comes into play and the appellate authority and the STAT are disentitled from setting aside the ....