Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1116 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxJurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the order dated 18.11.2013 passed in RR No.43/2011-12, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner and consequential effectual order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No./2345/2001-02 (CST) are without jurisdiction - power of coordinate officer - whether coordinate officer is empowered to revise orders of the assessing authority and he can sit over the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and pass a fresh order? Held that: - when orders are passed by the assessing authority, i.e. the 1st respondent herein, matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Before the appellate authority, mainly, it was the case of the petitioner that it could not file statutory forms as the same could not be procured before orders were passed by the assessing authority. It was also pleaded that, statutory forms were procured and accordingly (13) ‘G’ forms, (13) ‘C’ forms, (10) ‘F’ forms and (7) ‘H’ forms and other documentary evidence were filed and condonation of delay was sought. With regard to statutory forms, the appellate authority remitted the matter back to the assessing authority, with a direction to verify the correctness of turnovers covered by statutory forms that would be filed by the petitioner and grant relief to the extent it is eligible, in accordance with the provisions of law. It is true that, consequent to the order passed by the appellate authority, giving benefit of statutory forms, effectual orders are passed, which are also rectified on the representation filed by the petitioner, accepting deferment facility for payment of tax. But, at the same time, when it is noticed by the revisional authority, that certain irregularities are committed by the assessing authority while passing effectual orders, pursuant to the order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the appellate authority, 2nd respondent has invoked powers under Section 9(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957. From a perusal of the orders passed by the revisional authority, it is clear that concessional rate on the tax allowed on the turnover of ₹ 24,05,520/- was irregular, inasmuch as ‘C’ forms, which are issued, are anterior to the effective date of registration. Similarly, for turnover of ₹ 1,13,83,834/-, it is alleged that except filing of ‘F’ forms, petitioner has not filed any other documents, evidencing actual transport/movement of goods and on turnover of ₹ 49,16,426/- which is covered by ‘H’ forms, it is alleged that petitioner has not filed any other documents evidencing actual export of goods and also failed to file orders placed by foreign buyers on the exports. Even with regard to the allegation of limitation, it is to be noticed that, as the revisional authority has revised the order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010 only, as such, it cannot also be said that suo motu revisional power that was exercised by the 2nd respondent is beyond the period of limitation. Except the allegation of maintainability and jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent, petitioner has not controverted any of the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order. Even learned counsel for the petitioner, except the submission on the point of jurisdiction, has not urged any other point. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent has rightly exercised suo motu powers, in revising the order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010. It is to be noticed that though there is statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, petitioner, has approached this Court without availing the same - the order dated 18.11.2013 passed in RR No.43/2011-12, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, and consequential effectual order dated 25.11.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Proc.No./2345/2001-02 (CST), are valid and legal and it cannot be said that such orders are passed without jurisdiction. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|