9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dinya, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for respondents 1 to 3. The order of the third respondent dated February 4, 2010 calling upon the petitioner to file written objections to the proposal to revise the assessment proceedings passed for the year 2003-04 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is challenged herein. The third respondent declined to defer the revision proceedings by recording the following reason: "Apropos to their letter vide reference 6th cited M/s Johnson Lifts (P) Ltd., Hyderabad are informed that section 20(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is not applicable to the facts of the present revision proceedings for the year 2003-04 under APGST Act." The petitioner is a company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sals and the said writ petition is pending. It would appear that the Supreme Court by the order dated May 12, 2005 had referred to the decision in Kone Elevators [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC) for reconsideration by a Constitution Bench, on the ground that the decision in Kone Elevators [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC) was in conflict with the earlier judgments of the apex court in State of Rajasthan v. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. [1969] 24 STC 349 (SC), State Rajasthan v. Nenu Ram [1970] 26 STC 268 (SC) and Vanguard Rolling Shutters & Steel Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. [1977] 39 STC 372 (SC). In view of the arguments during the hearing for admission of W.P. No. 29062 of 2009, the petitioner considered it appropriate to file an application t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a duty to be exercised in appropriate cases and that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kone Elevators [2005] 140 STC 22 (SC) having been referred to a Constitution Bench for reconsideration, the third respondent ought to have exercised the discretion not to proceed with the revision. In addition Sri Venkataraman, submits that in view of the petition dated January 20, 2010 submitted by the petitioner beseeching deferment of the revisional proceedings, the third respondent ought to have recorded reasons for declining exercise of discretion available under sub-section (6) of section 20 (to defer). Sri A.V. Krishna Koundinya, Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that we are taking in this case, it may not be necessary to examine in greater detail the contours of the discretion or obligation as the case may that is enjoined on the revisional authority under sub-section (6) of section 20. The authority to defer consecrated by the provisions of section 20(6) is a public power and is liable to be exercised for rational and discernable purposes, particularly, when judicial review against any decision by a statutory authority is available. Recording of reasons for the exercise of such power, it is axiomatic, is non-derogable. The order impugned does not set out any reasons for the decision of the third respondent except the bland statement; 'Section 20(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
