TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 200 of 1983) and T.R.C. No. 35 of 1988 relates to the assessment year 1980-81 (T.A. No. 201 of 1983). Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders of assessment were passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence, and a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [1984] 55 STC 292 held that the notification vesting power in the authority was ultra vires the provisions of section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") and arbitrary and that even section 38(4) of the Act does not cure the defect, therefore the order of assessment has to be set aside. The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, on the other hand, contends that the basis of the judgment in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [1984] 55 STC 292 (AP) and the defect pointed out by the Division Bench have been corrected by section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Act No. 18 of 1985) by amending section 4 of the main Act, therefore after the amendment, conferring of jurisdiction on the officer is not violative of section 4 of the main Act, as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G.O. Ms. No. 1091, as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 434, were further amended by notification issued under section 2(1)(b) of the Act, in G.O. Ms. No. 1059, Revenue(s), dated July 27, 1982. The power under the second proviso to para 2 of the said G.O. was conferred with retrospective effect. There were certain other amendments with which we are not concerned here. The order of assessment which was questioned therein was passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Intelligence). The contention was that the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Intelligence) and the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) not being officers authorised to perform the functions within the local limits, had no jurisdiction to take any proceedings against the petitioner therein, therefore the notification issued by the Commissioner conferring jurisdiction over the entire State on those officers and the second proviso to G.O. Ms. No. 1091, as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 434, were ultra vires the Act as also violative of article 14 of the Constitution as no guidelines were laid down for the exercising of the powers of assessment and no appeal was also provided therefrom. It was also contended that G.O. Ms. Nos. 434 and 1091 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lt in discrimination in violation of article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench also noted that by Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985, section 4 of the Act was amended and later notification was issued delimiting the areas of the jurisdiction of the officers. It was held that although concurrent jurisdiction of all the Commercial Tax Officers (Intelligence) over the entire State was no longer operative, the notification delimiting the areas of operation would not have retrospective effect to validate the impugned notice and accordingly quashed the impugned notice. Subsequently another Division Bench of this Court had to consider the validity of the collection of tax by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Intelligence). Though it was contended that in view of the judgment in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [1984] 55 STC 292 (AP) the conferment of concurrent jurisdiction on several officers in respect of the same area was held to be violative of article 14, yet rejecting the contention it was held that by virtue of amendment of section 4 and section 38(4) by Amendment Act 18 of 1985 the defect was cured. The Division Bench observed that the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n them by or under the Act as may be assigned to them either by the State Government or any officer empowered in that behalf within such local limits as the State Government or any other authority or officer, empowered by them in this behalf may assign to them. It was by virtue of the words "within such local limits" used in the unamended section that the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Balaji Rice Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [1984] 55 STC 292 held that the territorial jurisdiction of the said officers could not be fixed as comprising the whole State of Andhra Pradesh either by the Government or by the Board of Revenue (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes). Now the amended section gives a wide scope for purposes of prescribing the jurisdiction of the officers either with reference to area or areas or the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it follows that the amendment cured the defect pointed out by the earlier Bench. Sub-section (4) of section 38 of the Amendment Act 18 of 1985 which came into force with effect from July 1, 1985 reads as follows: "38. Validation and exemption.-(1)............... (2)............................ (3)........................ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle 14 of the Constitution. A combined reading of section 38(4) and the proviso as amended, shows that having regard to the conditions specified in the G.O. guidelines have been provided and that provision is given retrospective. Now reverting to McDowell Co. Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1988] 68 STC 124 (AP), it may be pointed out that section 38(4) of the Amendment Act 18 of 1985 was not brought to the notice of the Bench. What all was stated before the said Bench was that the Government had issued a notification delimiting the jurisdictional areas of the officers and their jurisdiction was confined to certain specified areas and that the concurrent jurisdiction was no longer in force. That contention was rejected on the ground that the notification delimiting the area of jurisdiction could not have retrospective effect and would not therefore retrospectively validate the impugned notice. We may add here that sub-section (4) of section 38 of the Amendment Act, inter alia, provides that the amendment made by G.O. Ms. No. 434 and G.O. Ms. No. 1059 shall always be deemed to have been incorporated in Notification-II of G.O. Ms. No. 1091, Revenue, dated June 10, 1957. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
