TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granted. Application is dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Appeals The present appeals deal with the issue of payment of sales tax by the respondent herein for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88 (except 1986-87). For the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 in respect of the same respondent-assessee, assessments were completed by the Commercial Tax Officer excluding the branch transfers from taxation and thereby rejecting the contention of the appellant that it could be inter-State level. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Nellore, issued show-cause notice on November 14, 1985, proposing to treat stock transfers of the assessee as inter-State sale. Pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice issued, the Deputy C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (2) shall not be exercised by the authority specified therein 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." Section 20 deals with the power of revision vested with the Commissioner of Commercial Tax and other prescribed authorities. Sub-section (1) of section 20 deals with the suo motu powers of revision which could be exercised by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax in an appropriate case. The aforesaid suo motu power of revision which could be exercised by the Commissioner is, however, circumscribed by the subsequent provision which is sub-section (2A) while providing that such power of exercising suo motu revision is v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not committed any error in quashing the impugned showcause notice in the present case as ex facie by issuing the aforesaid showcause notice, what the authority has sought to do is to reopen the question or the issue which is already decided by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation between the same parties but for earlier assessment years, i.e., assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. As such, the intention to reopen the issue or question by exercising the purported power under subsection (2A) of section 20, in our opinion cannot be exercised as the same is prohibited by the explicit language of sub-section (2A) of section 20. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order ....