9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x, by original assessment order dated 26.02.2005 for the year 2001-02, by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division. The appellate authority has disposed of the appeal, by allowing it in part and dismissing in part, vide Appeal Order in AO No.P/221/07-08, dated 26.03.2008. While remanding the matter, the appellate authority directed the 1st respondent to verify the statutory forms and other documentary evidence that was already produced by the petitioner or that would be produced and take steps in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, the 1st respondent passed effectual order on 20.10.2009 and the same was served on the petitioner on 20.11.2009. Thereafter, on the representation submitted by the petitioner, that it is entitled for deferment facility, the effectual order dated 20.10.2009 was rectified by further order dated 04.01.2010. It is the case of the petitioner, that pursuant to such effectual order, as rectified by the assessing authority by order dated 04.01.2010, it is entitled for refund of Rs. 11,26,211/- And letter dated 19.01.2010 was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise authorities for a turnover of Rs. 51,840/-, the dealer has not filed any other documents evidencing actual export of goods. The dealers also failed to file orders placed by the foreign buyers on the exporters and the consequential orders placed by the exporters on the dealer, which are essential for examination of the correctness of the claim of exemption towards deemed exports. 4. A turnover of Rs. 9,60,40,045/- was allowed exemption towards export sales based on the production of photocopies of sale invoices, Bank appendix-25 of certificate of export and realization in form No.1, photocopies of shipping bills of the dealer and photocopies of 12 bills of lading (as against 31 bills of lading mentioned in list of direct export sales). The details or photocopies of purchase orders of the foreign buyers are not furnished to examine whether the export of goods has taken place in pursuance of the purchase orders or the foreign buyers or not." 5. In the notice of revision, it is alleged that the assessing authority has allowed concessional rate of tax and exemption on certain turnovers without verifying or obtaining the statutory forms/required documents, as such, it is notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1956, read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent is not having any jurisdiction. Counter-affidavit is also filed by the 1st respondent-assessing authority, controverting the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner and it is further stated that the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not barred by limitation. 9. At first instance, when orders are passed by the assessing authority, i.e. the 1st respondent herein, matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Before the appellate authority, mainly, it was the case of the petitioner that it could not file statutory forms as the same could not be procured before orders were passed by the assessing authority. It was also pleaded that, statutory forms were procured and accordingly (13) 'G' forms, (13) 'C' forms, (10) 'F' forms and (7) 'H' forms and other documentary evidence were filed and condonation of delay was sought. Further case of the petitioner was that, assessing authority erred in levying tax on the sales of DEPB licences within the State and in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, petitioner, in spite of opportunity, has not chosen to file either any material or objections before such authority. As there was no finding on certain turnovers, on which petitioner has claimed exemption of concessional tax, in the order passed by the appellate authority, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has sat over the earlier order passed by the appellate authority and passed the impugned order without any jurisdiction. The earlier order of the appellate authority is in the nature of a remand order with regard to certain disputed turnovers, on which appellate authority directed to receive statutory forms which were not filed earlier and to pass appropriate orders, by examining various claims made by the petitioner. Even with regard to the allegation of limitation, it is to be noticed that, as the revisional authority has revised the order dated 20.10.2009, which was rectified on 04.01.2010 only, as such, it cannot also be said that suo motu revisional power that was exercised by the 2nd respondent is beyond the period of limitation. Except the allegation of maintainability and jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
