TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal pending before the STAT has nothing in common with the order of the second respondent dated April 28, 2008. Appeal dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 15069 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2009 - GODA RAGHURAM AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN, JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by RAMESH RANGANATHAN J. The order of the second respondent dated September 29, 2008, revising the order of the third respondent dated October 13, 2004, is under challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ). The petitioner seeks consequential directions to the fourth respondent not to collect the balance 50 per cent. of the disputed tax till disposal of the appeal filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Visakhapatnam in A.R. No. 190 of 2005 and to the fifth respondent to dispose of the appeal in A.R. No. 190 of 2005. The petitioner is a partnership firm and Amulya Publications a sole proprietary concern. Both these concerns are said to carry on business in publication of literary books, etc. The fourth respondent passed an order of asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed by the third respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The order of the third respondent was set aside and the order of the assessing authority was restored. In his order dated September 29, 2008, the second respondent noted that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the STAT to the extent the appeal preferred to the third respondent-Appellate Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on the issue of taxability of purchase of paper used in printing of duplicate student text books but not on the quantum of turnover arrived at 40 per cent. of the MRP value of the text books for Rs. 84,26,008. The second respondent observed that the petitioner had not raised any objection on the issues involved in the revision, that they had printed and sold duplicate textbooks with deceptively similar design, title and marks as that of Government text books, that they had stored the textbooks illegally in a few rooms and had attempted to evade legitimate taxes due to the Government in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The second respondent held that, for printing these textbooks, the petitioner had purchased raw material, i.e., paper, ink, etc., from persons other than registered dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther States by issuing C forms. The second respondent states that the basic question of liability, under section 6A, was answered by the appellate authority, in favour of the Revenue, that the revision was confined only to the quantum of taxable turnover and the other questions namely exemption of sale of text books, clubbing of turnover, etc., were not the subject-matter of revision. The second respondent denies applicability of section 20(2A) of the Act and states that, while the turnover disputed before the STAT was Rs. 24,07,454, the order of revision was confined to a turnover of Rs. 9,62,981 other than the turnover of Rs. 24,07,454 disputed before the Tribunal and, therefore, section 20(2A) had no application. The second respondent submits that, against the impugned order of revision, the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal to the STAT which they ought to have availed of instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner would dwell in detail regarding the manner of inspection of their premises, to certain criminal cases which they claim were illegally foisted, etc. As they have no rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation to the earlier assessment year. A distinction must be borne in mind that had the intention of the Legislature been otherwise, the same could have been specified in explicit language as was done in section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The words 'issue or question' are of wide amplitude. An issue or question may arise in relation to the self-same assessee in respect of any assessment year or it may arise after some years in relation to some other assessee. If such issue or question was the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal or if it has been decided by the Appellate Tribunal under section 21, evidently, on a plain reading of sub-section (2A) of section 20, the same cannot be the subject-matter of revision under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act. Furthermore, judicial and administrative discipline demands that inferior authority must act in terms of the decision of a superior authority. . . . A question or issue may be on fact or in law. Where it involves a question or issue as of fact, the same may be held to be confined to that particular order and in relation to another assessment year, the fact may be different. But, if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
