TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Deputy Commissioner, in the absence of valid delegation. The office order dated June 19, 2014, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, allocating the subjects/functions among the various posts in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, also would not give any authority for the first respondent-Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), to exercise powers under section 9C of the Act. Such allocation order issued by the Commissioner is only for the purpose of internal administration in the office of Commissioner, but basing on such orders of allocation, statutory powers conferred under section 9C of the Act cannot be bypassed. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) is not competent to pass orders under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the petitioner to the best of judgment in terms of powers vested under rule 17 of the A. P. Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939. On receipt of show-cause notice dated April 24, 2009, the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation on June 22, 2009. In the explanation filed, while denying the various allegations made by the Commercial Tax Officer, the petitioner has specifically pleaded for supply of material/report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and also requested for an opportunity of being heard before passing further orders. Referring to the said explanation filed by the petitioner, final orders are passed by the Entertainment Tax Officer on October 8, 2010, vide reference ETIN: 28883997926. In the final orders passed, it is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd such order cannot be sustained in law. Basing on the said judgment, the appellate authority has allowed the appeal by order dated December 20, 2010 and remanded the matter to the assessing authority with a direction to conduct ground survey work basing on the information stated to have been available with him and pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Although such order is passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur on December 20, 2010, the first respondent-Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) has initiated suo motu revisional proceedings and passed impugned order dated November 14, 2014 in Proceedings RV No. LV(4)/29/2013, setting aside the orders of the Appellate Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, on the allegation of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, it is stated that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued office order dated June 19, 2014, passed in CCT's Ref. No. C/ 2/2014, allocating the subjects/functions among the various posts in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It is stated that the Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal) was allocated the revisions and review work of the ADCs of all the Divisions. Referring to the said orders of the Commissioner, it is stated by the first respondent that he is empowered to pass orders in exercise of powers under section 9C of the Act. Further, with reference to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that the subscription agreements entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. In this case, it is not in dispute that though the number of connections furnished by the petitioner to the assessing authority was found to be incorrect, the material relied on by such authority was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show-cause notice. We have also perused the explanation filed by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice issued to him. In the explanation filed, while denying the allegations made in the show cause, the petitioner has categorically pleaded for supply of material on the basis of which proceedings are initiated against him by disputing the number of connections furnished by him and he also requested for an opportunity of personal hearing be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are of the view that the Additional Commissioner is not empowered to review the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, in the absence of valid delegation. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd. [2015] 4 VST-OL 364 (T and AP) ; [2014] 59 APSTJ 58 also supports the case of the petitioner. We have also perused the office order dated June 19, 2014, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, allocating the subjects/functions among the various posts in the office of the Commis sioner of Commercial Taxes, but the same would not give any authority for the first respondent-Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), to exercise powers under section 9C of the Act. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
