Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1084 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPowers of revision and leviability of tax at applicable rates - Section 6A of the APGST Act for the year 1992-93 - Purchase turnovers of fuel, coal and miscellaneous goods - Issue not decided and dealt by the Deputy Commissioner - Appellant contended that adequate opportunity was not given for obtaining and producing before the Commissioner the necessary and relevant information - Held that:- the powers of revision, can be invoked in respect of a subject-matter which is not adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner had in fact revised the orders of the CTO under the guise of revising the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it follows that the Commissioner had only revised the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Also the appellant should be given an opportunity to produce their records in support of their contentions that the said turnovers brought to tax are not assessable to tax and for fresh consideration of the subject issue by the concerned. Validity of second revision of same assessment order - Assessment order duly passed by the CTO and Deputy Commissioner took suo motu revision on two issues - Deputy Commissioner did not advert to the issue concerning section 6A, hence the Commissioner having found that revisional order insofar asnon-adjudication of issue concerning section 6A is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue of the State had taken up the suo motu revision on this particular issue which was not considered and adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner and had sought to revise the orders of the Deputy Commissioner on the said issue and had passed the revisional orders - Held that:- the law is well-settled that a second revision of the same order by the same authority on the same facts and issues is impermissible. But here the Commissioner had sought to revise and had infact revised the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the contention that the Commissioner had revised the orders of the CTO a second time is a contention without any merit and therefore, stands rejected. Period of limitation - Sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act - Appellant contended that order of Commissioner passed after about 5 years of the order of assessment of Deputy Commissioner - Held that:- Commissioner had initiated the revision proceedings by a show cause notice dated May 3, 1999 proposing to revise the order dated March 7, 1996 of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Panjagutta Division. Further, the Commissioner had passed revisional orders admittedly on February 29, 2000, i.e., within the period of four years from the date of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), i.e., March 7, 1996. In view of the said facts and finding that the Commissioner had revised the orders dated March 7, 1996 of the Deputy Commissioner and not the order dated March 24, 1994 of the CTO and in the light of the further fact that the impugned orders were passed within four years from the date of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the contention of the appellant that the impugned order is passed beyond period of limitation is devoid of merit. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
|