9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 1984-85 by the Commercial Tax Officer, IV Circle, Guntur on February 16, 1989, on a net turnover of Rs. 28,08,987. That assessment had become final as no appeal was preferred against it before the first appellate authority. The succeeding assessing authority has reopened the said order of assessment under section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (6 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the ground that during inspection held on July 16, 1985 the Inspecting Officers have come into possession of some incriminating material. The succeeding assessing authority passed a reassessment order on December 31, 1985 whereby tax was levied on the additional turnover of Rs. 23,91,326. That assessment order was q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is invalid, illegal and without jurisdiction as per the provisions of section 20(3) of the Act. 5.. On the other hand the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that section 20(3) of the Act lays down that the powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Act shall be exercisable only within such period not exceeding four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer and in the present case the order was passed on March 15, 1995 exercising the powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Act, i.e., within four years and therefore the impugned order is perfectly just and valid and the service of the order on the dealer is an administrative duty (min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no dispute about the passing of the order on March 15, 1995. Moreover there was explanation given by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothapeta Circle, Guntur, in the counter-affidavit filed in this case, for the delay in serving the orders on the assessee. The delay is only ministerial delay. Since the order was passed admittedly on March 15, 1995 within four years from the order passed after remand, i.e., March 16, 1991 and since there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay in serving the final order on the assessee, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no help. 9.. In State of A.P. v. Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. [1995] 96 STC 664, this Court considered the earlier decisions of this Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is well within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., four years. (3) In the decision in M. Ramakrishnaiah Co. v. State of A.P. [1976] 38 STC 537 (AP), similar view in the above two cases was taken, though it was further held that the order in revision did not bind the assessee in view of the inordinate delay in serving the order of revision. But in the present case explanation was given for the delay in serving the order of revision, which is a ministerial delay. Since similar view of the above cases regarding limitation was taken even in this case also, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned in this appeal is well within the period of statutory limitation of four years. (4) The decision in Meenakshi Corporation v. Deput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
