TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This assessee's writ petition is against the order dated February 25, 2008 passed by the fourth respondent revising the order passed by the assessing authority. The relevant facts may be noticed. For the assessment year (AY) 2004-05, the petitioner was provisionally assessed by the order of assessment dated March 9, 2005. Thereagainst he preferred an appeal disputing the levy of tax on sale of HSD oil supplied for its rigs operating at the off shore oil exploration block situated at the continental shelf. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on September 13, 2006 and remanded the matter with directions, to pass an order of assessment de novo. Final assessment order was thereafter passed on December 12, 2006 granting exemption on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....208 of 2007. The decision of a learned Division Bench of this court in Jyothi Dairy Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Circle, Hyderabad [2007] 44 APSTJ 87 was also referred to. However, by the order impugned dated February 25, 2008, the fourth respondent allowed the revision confirming the proposals in the showcause notice dated November 2, 2007; reviewed the exemption granted by the assessing authority; held that the transaction does not qualify for exemption under section 38 read with section 5 of the Act since the transactions have taken place within the State of Andhra Pradesh; and consequently directed the assessing authority to give effect to the revisional order withdrawing the exemption granted on the tur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 20(2A) of the Act circumscribes the revisional jurisdiction conferred under section 20 and enacts a bar on the exercise of such revisional jurisdiction whenever any issue or question that arises for consideration in exercise of the revisional power is, inter alia, pending adjudication before the STAT; irrespective of whether the issue pertains to the same assessment year in question or otherwise. The decision of the Full Bench of this court in Indo National Limited [2004] 136 STC 586 (AP) [FB] was subsequently reiterated in Vensa Biotek Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2007] 5 VST 388 (AP) and Jyothi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. [2007] 44 APSTJ 87 (AP). In fact, as already noticed, the subsequent decision of this court in Jyothi Dairy Pvt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equent on the impugned revisional order dated February 25, 2008), on condition that the petitioner deposits half the disputed tax within the period stipulated in the order dated March 13, 2008. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,89,530 pursuant to the conditional interim order granted above. Since the revisional order dated February 25, 2008 is quashed, the petitioner shall be entitled to and shall forthwith be refunded the amount deposited pursuant to the interim order of this court dated March 13, 2008. Since the fourth respondent proceeded to pass the revisional order, (a) in violation of the bar enjoined by section 20(2A) of the Act; (b) despite being sensitized to the....