2026 (2) TMI 728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1957 praying the Court to revise the order dated 01.12.2008 in T.A.No.878 of 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, 'the impugned order'). 2. Heard Mr. T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for the petitioner. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-Assessee and set aside the revisional order dated 04.05.2007 in CCT'S Refill-III(1)/1370/2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (Revisional Authority); and confirmed / restored the order dated 20.05.2003 in Appeal No. A/47/2003-2004 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod of limitation" is answered in favour of the petitioner-State, the question of entering into the merits of the case so far as veracity of "F" Forms submitted by the respondent-Assessee are concerned need not be looked into. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the aspect of "period of limitation" first. 6. Some of the admitted factual matrix of the case is the relevant dates which would be necessary to decide the aspect of limitation. 7. The assessment order involved in the instant case is of the year 2000-2001. The period of limitation prescribed for assessment of tax under 2nd proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act is one year. 8. For ready reference, 2nd proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act is reproduced hereunder, viz., ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2nd proviso to Section 14(1) stood omitted. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to contradict the fact that the assessment order involved in the instant case was 2000-2001 and the 2nd proviso to Section 14(1) was in force till 31.03.2001. Therefore, it was the 2nd proviso which would have been the basis for determining the period of limitation and not the omitted portion which came into force from 01.04.2001 onwards. This fact had been duly considered and decided by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to show that the 2nd proviso to Section 14(1) would not be applicable to the facts of present case where the assessment order is tha....