TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isional authority could not have revised the original assessment order dated January 8, 2001 more than six years thereafter. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, in setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (CT) dated November 28, 2008, albeit for reasons other than those referred to in the order of the Tribunal. It is wholly unnecessary for this court, therefore, to examine the question whether or not the order passed by the revisional authority, under section 20(2) of the APGST Act, is a second revision. - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Revision Case No. 40 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2014 - RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SATYANARAYANAMURTHY M. JJ. P. Balaji Varma, (Special Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, allowed the appeal. In his order dated January 29, 2005 the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, relying on the judgment of this court in Girdharlal and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1995] 97 STC 442 (AP), held that the assessing authority could not revise the assessment order without there being any fresh material de hors the records. 3. The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), exercising powers under section 20(2) of the APGST Act, sought to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the said order was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on April 4, 2008. Objections were filed thereto on September 22, 2008. The revisional authority, by order dated N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the respondent-assessee, would submit that, as the order of the assessing authority dated April 21, 2004 passed in the exercise of his powers under section 14(4) of the APGST Act was not based on any fresh material, such exercise of power is without jurisdiction; the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had relied on a judgment of this court in holding the order dated April 21, 2004 to be without jurisdiction; while the Additional Commissioner could have exercised his powers of revision under section 20(2) of the APGST Act to revise the original assessment order dated January 8, 2001, he could not have revised the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the assessing authority dated April 21, 2004; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
