2017 (11) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2014/F1-R.R.No.37/2014/F1, of respondent No.1. We have heard Sri S.R.R. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Suri Babu, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (AP). The petitioner is a dealer in cotton and its products. It is an assessee on the rolls of the respondent No.2-Assessing Officer. By his proceedings dated 29-3-2014 A.A.O.No.29358, respondent No.2 has determined the tax payable by the petitioner for the period from 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 as Rs. 3,63,08,479/-. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.12652 of 2014. The main ground on which the said order was questioned was that though a request for affording an opportunity of personal hearing was made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order purporting to revise the assessment with reference to the final assessment proceedings dated 29-3-2014 of respondent No.2. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fresh assessment order made by respondent No.2 on 9-8-2017. It is evident from the chronology of events as borne out by the record, proceedings were taken out by respondent Nos.1 and 2 simultaneously with respect to the same subject matter, namely, the assessment of tax for the year 2009-10 of the petitionercompany. Respondent No.1 has committed a manifest error in purporting to exercise her jurisdiction under Section 32(2) of the Act with reference to a non-existent order i.e., order 29-3-2014, which was set-aside in W.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellate Tribunal under Section 33. (Emphasis added) It is clear from the above reproduced provision that the revisional power can be exercised by the competent authority in order to examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to him, under the provisions of the Act. It is evident from the impugned order that respondent No.1 has exercised her revisional power with reference to the final assessment proceedings dated 29-3-2014, which, as noted hereinbefore was set-aside by this Court in the Writ Petition and consequently it was no longer in existence when she has passed the impugned order in purported exercise of her revisional power. Respondent No.1 being a functionary occupy....