TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prehensive Scheme of State Incentives Scheme, 1992 (NCSSI, 1992) vide G.O.Ms. No.117, Inds. & Com. (IFR) Department dated 17.03.1993, the petitioner applied for tax exemption and, accordingly, the Commissioner of Industries, Hyderabad vide his proceedings in File No.10/3/5/2692 dated 22.12.1995 fixed up the eligibility for Sales Tax exemption for a period of 5 years i.e., from 10.08.1995 to 09.08.2000 for Rs. 30,03,920/- and the petitioner duly complied the conditions to avail the tax incentives, as per the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent passed an assessment order dated 24.02.2000 in Assessment No.2154/96-97(APGST) fixing tax liability at Rs. 10,30,948/- for the year 1996-97 without serving the original assessment order on the petitioner; while passing the said assessment order, the 4th respondent did not follow the procedure laid down under the APGST Act; therefore, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. As the 4th respondent did not consider the exemption certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries and the order was not served on petitioner by the 4th respondent, the petitioner only came to k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d respondent without appreciating various contentions raised before him, dismissed the Revision erroneously and therefore prayed to declare the proceedings as illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that since the 3rd respondent and ADC, Hyderabad passed orders without following necessary procedure prescribed under Rule 58 of the APGST Rules, the said orders are illegal and arbitrary; apart from that, the 3rd respondent also did not consider the background of the case and erroneously dismissed the same, drawn the attention of this Court to a decisions of this Court in Sri Balaji Food, Kakinada Vs. The State Level Committee, Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, Madras Cements Limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and another and Srikanth Trading Company Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh to contend that the order passed by the authorities i.e., 3rd respondent and ADC, Hyderabad without issuing notice is arbitrary and illegal and prayed to grant the aforesaid reliefs. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of 4th respondent; though he obtained exemption from payment of tax in view of the eligibility certificate allegedly issued by the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es etc., is contemplated under Rule 58, which reads as follows: "(a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent; or (b) if such dealer or his manager or agent is not found, by leaving it at his last known place of business or residence or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family; or (c) if the address of such dealer is known to the assessing or licensing authority, by sending it to him by registered post; or (d) if any or all of the modes aforesaid is not practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his known place of business or residence." Taking advantage of various modes of service of notices, summons, order of proceedings, Sri K. Lakshman, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that due to non-service of notices, check memos and orders passed by the 4th respondent and ADC, Hyderabad the petitioner could not pursue the proceedings. No doubt, a specific procedure is contemplated under Rule 58 of the APGST Rules for serving of notices, summons, orders etc., on dealer but Rule 33(1) of APGST Rules prescribed the procedure for filing Appeals; according to it, if for any reason, subject to provisions of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disposal of the Appeal; according to it, the appellate authority may, on an application filed by the appellant order stay of collection of the tax subject to furnishing of such security or on payment of such part of the disputed tax within such time as may be specified. Thus, power to grant stay of collection was conferred on the Appellate Deputy Commissioner only on an application filed by the appellant. In the present dispute, the petitioner filed an Appeal in Form-I on 29th May, 2001 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Rural Division, Hyderabad. In the grounds of Appeal filed along with petition, the petitioner prayed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to pass an order relieving the manufacturing firm from the liability of sales tax as demanded by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhongir in his notice dated 28.02.2001 and pass such other order or orders. No interim relief was claimed for stay of collection of disputed tax before the ADC, Hyderabad or no separate application was filed for stay of collection of disputed tax but the ADC, Hyderabad rejected the Appeal itself for non-compliance of the objections. When no stay was claimed before the ADC, Hyderabad by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....copy of the assessment order, filed Appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad with substantial delay without complying the procedure prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules framed under the APGST Rules; thereupon, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner issued two check memos and a final notice calling upon the petitioner to comply the objections but the petitioner wantonly did not comply the objections taken by the office of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to register the same as Appeal filed Form I-A. The said rejection order was marked to the petitioner but the petitioner slept over for a decade only on receipt of statutory notice dated 13.01.2015, filed an Appeal before the Tribunal and Revision before the 3rd respondent for stay of collection of tax during pendency of the Appeal. The conduct of the petitioner from the beginning is blameworthy since he did not respond to any of the notices from 1999 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that on account of noncompliances of Rule 58, the petitioner within time could not prefer Appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and Revision before the 3rd respondent drawn attention of this Court t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and Appellate Deputy Commissioner cannot be gone into at this stage and, at best, the law laid down by the Courts in the above decisions are helpful to the petitioner in the pending Appeal before Tribunal but not in the present case. However, the power of review under Article 226 is purely discretionary and the court may exercise such power when the order passed by the statutory authority is in violation of any of the Rules or in violation of principles of natural justice. To claim such discretionary relief, the petitioner must approach the Court with clean hands; in the present case, the petitioner though allegedly obtained tax exemption subject to compliance of certain conditions in the certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries slept over for more than 15 years and approached this Court leisurely; in which case the court cannot exercise its power of review. In matters of taxation, it is inappropriate for this Court to interfere, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of show-cause notice or at the stage of assessment where alternative remedy by way of filing a reply or appeal, as the case may be, is available. Bu....