TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 2012 of the second respondent, to the extent he directed the first respondent to make de novo assessments, is quashed and the first respondent is restrained from proceeding any further in the matter. - W.P. Nos. 39372, 39375, 39379 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 4-2-2013 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAMACHANDRA RAO M.S., JJ. For the Appellant : S.R.R. Viswanath For the Respondents : P. Balaji Varma, Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, The order of the court was made by M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO J.- The second petitioner in these writ petitions is a director in M/s. Murugan Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (which is the first petitioner in W.P. No. 39372 of 2012) and in M/s. Punganur Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (which is the first petitioner in W.P. No. 39375 of 2012 and in W.P. No. 39379 of 2012). In W.P. No. 39372 of 2012, the petitioners submit that on the basis of a report of Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Office, Tirupathi, dated May 24, 2002 (whose officers had inspected the premises of the first petitioner on May 6, 2002), an ex parte assessment order dated March 31, 2006 was passed by the first respondent; that the first petitioner challenged it by way of appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore February 10, 2012 as mandated by section 24A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957; the reassessment order passed by the first respondent is barred by limitation; that the order of the first respondent was again challenged before the second respondent in appeal and a specific plea of bar of limitation was raised before the second respondent; but the second respondent, by order dated November 9, 2012, rejected the said plea of limitation and remanded the matter back to the first respondent to cause a thorough enquiry on all aspects, verify books of accounts and other records and pass orders de novo; that this order is unsustainable and ought to be quashed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. In W.P. No. 39379 of 2012, the petitioners submit that on the basis of a report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Office, Tirupathi dated August 29, 2006 (whose officers had inspected the premises of the first petitioner on April 17, 2006), an assessment order dated March 25, 2008 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was passed by the first respondent; the first petitioner challenged it by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005; that the orders dated January 9, 2012 of the second respondent impugned in the writ petitions are required to be quashed as they are without jurisdiction. He relied upon the decisions in K. Mohd. Osman Saheb Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 27 STC 303 (AP) and Cement Distributors (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1969] 23 STC 86 (Mad). He also contended that the second respondent by the impugned order could not have conferred jurisdiction on the first respondent to pass orders beyond limitation, contrary to the above provisions of law and direct him to make fresh de novo assessments, and relied upon P. Vittal Pai v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Puttur [1976] 104 ITR 794 (Karn), Hope Textiles Ltd. v. Union of India [1994] 205 ITR 508 (SC) and Bengal Tea and Fabrics Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Taxes [1997] 223 ITR 729 (Gauhati). Section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 reads: 20.(5) Where an order passed under this section has been set aside by any court or other competent authority under this Act for any reason the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially or entirely, and if there are orders of stay prohibiting the authority concerned to pass consequential orders, the period of three years shall get extended by the period during which such stay orders were in force: Provided further that if the subsequent appeal results in modification of such appeal, order or order of any court which is subjected to further appeal, either partially or wholly, the period of three years shall be computed from the date of receipt of subsequent order of appeal but not from the date of receipt of the original appeal, order or order of any court which was subjected to further appeal. A reading of the above provisions of law would indicate that section 20(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, would apply only where the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercises revisional powers under section 20 and such order is set aside by any court or other competent authority, but would not apply, where an order of assessment of the assessing authority is set aside in appeal by the appellate authority under the Act, and de novo assessment is directed in pursuance of or in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
