TMI Blog1969 (6) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial Tax Officer to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Macherla, because of the change of jurisdiction consequent on certain amendment made in the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, who became thus seized of the matter, revised the assessment order in terms of the appellate order. Then he started proceedings for levy of penalty. He levied penalty in a sum of Rs. 1,350, which was equivalent to one and half times the tax demanded on the suppressed turnover. The petitioner herein appealed in vain against the order of penalty before the Appellate Commissioner. He carried the matter in further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by a majority allowed the appeal on the ground that the levy was bad because the authority which levied the penalty is not the same as that which made the original assessment order. Aggrieved by this order, the State has come to this court in revision. The main point for determination is whether, once the original assessment has been made by a particular assessing authority, the penalty could be levied by its successor to whom the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the best of his judgment the turnover that has escaped assessment and assess the turnover so determined; (b) assess the correct amount of tax payable on the turnover that has been under-assessed. In addition to the tax assessed or fee levied under this sub-section, the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay a penalty as specified in sub-section (8). * * * (4-B) Before issuing any direction for the payment of any penalty under sub-section (2), sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), the assessing authority shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to explain the omission to disclose the turnover or to furnish correctly any particulars and shall make such inquiry as he considers necessary. (4-C) The powers conferred by sub-section (4) on the assessing authority may, subject to the same conditions as are applicable in the case of that authority, be exercised also by any of the authorities higher than the assessing authority including the Deputy Commissioner concerned." The power to make assessment order and levy penalty is given to the "assessing authority by the Act. The term "assessing authority" has been defined in the Act and it means any person authoris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings after making the revised assessment order and in continuation thereof? Learned counsel Sri G.V.R. Mohan Rao, relying on the dictum of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. V.P. Ramulu Naidu[1965] 16 S.T.C. 865. has urged that the penalty should be levied by the same authority as had made the original assessment order and further, it should be simultaneous with the original assessment order but not the revised order. The learned judges in that case on one of the points involved chose to differ from the view taken by this court in Sri Radhakrishna Co v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1962] 13 S.T.C. 117., which is binding on us unless overruled by a Full Bench of this Court. This court in that case has held that sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act only vests jurisdiction or power in the authority concerned to levy on the assessee penalty in certain cases and there is nothing to compel the officer to levy a penalty or issue a notice for that purpose only at the time when assessment under section 14(1) is made. It was further observed that section 14(2) is merely a provision enabling the revenue to have recourse to levy of penalty proceedings in certain contingencies. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d does not indicate the time at which it should be put into operation. Therefore, it is not at all necessary for the legal validity of the levy of penalty that the proceedings should have started simultaneous with the making of the original assessment order. The Madras case may also be distinguished on the ground that it was not a case where on the facts it could be said that there was suppression of turnover for, on behalf of the assessee himself, the discrepancy between the turnover disclosed in the return and that assessed was already brought to the notice of the authority. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by this court that the opening words of section 14(2) are not indicative of any time-limit. Now, coming to the question whether the Act permits the successorassessing authority to initiate penalty proceedings, we do not think that so long as the successor is the assessing authority within the meaning of the Act, the legality of levy can be assailed on the ground that he is not competent to levy penalty. We are no doubt referred to the decision of this court in Pallapothu Sarveswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1962] 13 S.T.C. 122. But that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
