9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fects sates' within the State, CST sales and consignment sales through agents in other States. The Commercial Tax Officer (Int)-III, Enforcement Wing, Hyderabad, conducted cross verification of transactions claimed as consignment sales by the appellant for the period April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000 covering a turnover of Rs. 1,05,08,900 in respect of ten dealers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and found them to be fictitious. He therefore passed provisional assessment order dated March 20,2001 disallowing claim for exemption on the entire turnover of Rs. 6.80 crores pertaining to the three month period from April 1, 2000 to June 30, 2000. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division. By order dated June 14, 2001, he allowed the appeal finding fault with the incomplete enquiry conducted by the assessing officer and directed him to make a full fledged enquiry into all the transactions relating to the disputed turnover and redo the assessment afresh after supplying any material that it has gathered in the investigation with the appellant for its rebuttal. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids, took up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commissioner at four per cent instead of 10 per cent. The appellant objected to the said show-cause notice contending that filing of F forms is sufficient to claim exemption towards consignment sales and that filing of information under rule 14(3) of the CST (AP) Rules is not mandatory. By order dated February 28, 2007, the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, accepted the contentions of the appellant and dropped the proposed revision on entire turnover considering the judgment of this court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A. P. Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. (1994) 95 STC 478 (AP); 18 APSTJ 204 and of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Shree Murugan Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (2005) 142 STC 399 (Mad) that rule 14(3) is not mandatory. He confirmed levy of 10 per cent tax on Rs. 2,35,760 instead of four per cent as determined by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abids, in his order dated March 15, 2003. The appellant did not file appeal against this order and it became final. While so, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated May 11, 2009, again referring to investigations done by the Department prior to the assessment wherein a turnover of Rs. 18.14 crores covering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond revision by a higher officer can be done; that he was revising the order of the Additional Commissioner dated February 28, 2007 for the year 2000-01 under the CST Act and bringing turnovers to tax as proposed in the show-cause notice ; and distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant on the ground that they were cases where the same officer took up the second revision. He confirmed the levy as proposed in the show-cause notice dated May 11, 2009 issued by him, increased the consignment sale turnover by Rs. 11.30 crores (type A and type B transactions mentioned above) ; disallowed exemption on consignment sales turnover of Rs. 3.52 crores plus Rs. 9.55 crores (type C and type D transactions mentioned above) ; and levied tax thereon. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri S. Dwara-kanath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, for the respondent. The learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the respondent is without jurisdiction; that it amounts to a second revision of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year the case of the same dealer cannot be taken up ; that the said decisions would apply only if orders of revision are passed by the same revisional authority; and since that is not the position in the present case, the said decisions do not apply. Section 20(1), (2) and (3) of the GST Act states as follows:- "20. Revision by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and other prescribed authorities.:- (1) The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to it, under the provisions of this Act, including sub-section (2) of this section and if such order or proceeding recorded is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, may make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Joint Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... probed into nor rejected. But when the respondent wanted to undertake revision (vide show-cause notice dated May 11, 2009), he sought to do so on the ground that the correctness of the F forms submitted by the assessee were once again subjected to verification in 2007-08 and 2008-09 by sending teams of officers to other States from where the F forms were obtained by the asses-see in support of its claim for exemption of consignment sales ; that enquiries revealed defects of the type A to D mentioned above; and therefore he wished to again undertake ostensibly revision of the order dated February 28, 2007 of the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal. In our view, it would have been a valid exercise of revisional power by the respondent if he had undertaken to revise the order dated February 28, 2007 of the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, on the ground that (a) the two decisions relied upon by the latter were wrong in law or (b) that he did not agree with the said decisions or (c) that the said decisions, on a proper consideration, would be inapplicable to the case of the appellant. But instead of doing so, he undertook the revisional exercise on the basis of fresh enquiries got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Wires (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad [1991] 80 STC 99 (AP), a Division Bench of this court held that it is impermissible to levy additional tax under section 5A of the GST Act in exercise of revisional powers by the Commissioner when such levy of additional tax was not all proposed by the Deputy Commissioner in the revision notice issued to the assessee ; that the illegality, if any, in not imposing additional tax attaches to the original assessment order; if at all, the assessment order had to be revised on the ground that there was failure on the part of the assessing authority to subject the turnover to additional tax under section 5A ; but, for the obvious reason that the period of limitation prescribed for revising the said assessment order expired long back, the Commissioner had rightly not taken steps for revising the original assessment order ; that the Commissioner cannot exercise the powers of reassessment or revision in the year 1989 in respect of the assessment made in the year 1983 ; and it is incomprehensible as to how the Commissioner could levy additional tax by revising the Deputy Commissioner's order dropping the proposed revision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
