SHALIMAR AGRO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-2010-4-2
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on April 29,2010

Shalimar Agro Tech Private Limited Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manoranjan Virk, Member (A) - (1.) THE above two appeals are filed by the appellant M/s. Lohiya Industries, Hyderabad, with respect to assessment and penalty orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2000 -01 under the APGST Act, 1957. The appellant has submitted that with respect to the same assessment year for the period from April, 2000 to May, 2000 the appellant was assessed provisionally under the APGST Act, 1957 by the Commercial Tax Officer Enforcement Wing -VI, vide his proceedings passed in CCT's Ref.Enft./CTO(INT.) -VI/10/2000 -01(APGST), dt. 22.1.2001. Aggrieved by these provisional orders, the appellant filed the appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division, disputing the tax liability on the following turnovers: - 1) Rs. 75,41,069/ - pertaining to sales of Rice Bran Refined Oil. 2) Rs. 7,33,145/ - and Rs. 1,19,757/ - pertaining to sales of Rice Bran Oil Grade I and Rice Bran Oil Grade II and 3) Rs. 4,46,875/ - pertaining to suppressed sale turnover arrived at by C.T.O., Enforcement Wing. The A.D.C., vide his order in Appeal No. C/144/2000 -01 dated 2.7.2001 remanded the matter with directions to the assessing authority. The appellant has submitted that while finalizing the assessments for the same assessment year, the final assessment was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, who totally ignored the remand directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division. This, according to them is incorrect as the Deputy Commissioner who has assumed the roll of an assessing authority in this case cannot ignore the directions of the appellate authority. In fact, the appellant has pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner while passing the final assessment order has not even made any mention of the existence of the A.D.C's order dated 2.7.2001. The appellants have in fact questioned the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to assume the role of the assessing authority in this case as the provisional assessment order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement Wing, and according to them once the jurisdiction for passing the assessment order has been clinched by the Enforcement Wing, the final assessment order should also have been passed by the Enforcement Wing. Apart from this, the appellants have also argued the case on facts and merits before us. The learned State Representative has supported the orders of the assessing authority and has stated that the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner related only to a provisional order not to the final assessment order. The learned State Representative has also submitted a copy of CCT's Ref.AI -III/1007/98, dated 3.5.99 by means of which the Deputy Commissioner had been authorized to exercise powers of lower authorities U/s. 4A of the APGST Act, 1957. According to the State Representative, the Deputy Commissioner had been given the powers to pass final assessment orders by virtue of this Circular U/s. 4A.
(2.) AFTER having heard both sides and after having gone through the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad dated 3.5.1999, we are of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner had been conferred the power for assuming the role of assessing authority by the Commissioner by these general instructions U/s. 4A of the APGST Act, 1957. More over, since the provisional assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement Wing pertained only to part of the year i.e., only 2 months from April, 2000 to May, 2000, we do not see anything wrong in passing of the final assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner for the whole assessment year. However we are of the opinion that once the Deputy Commissioner assumed the role of an assessing authority, he was bound to follow the remand directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as the latter is appellate authority. Even though both the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Deputy Commissioner are coordinate authorities of the same rank, in the present case one is the appellate authority and the other is the assessing authority. The directions of the appellate authority cannot be ignored by the assessing authority. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner while passing the final assessment order for the year 2000 -01, dated 12.3.2004 has referred to the order of the C.T.O. - VI, Enforcement Wing. When the final assessment order takes into consideration and refers to the provisional order of the C.T.O., Enforcement the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner passed in appeal with reference to the same provisional order cannot be ignored. Therefore, in our opinion, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, while finalizing the assessments for the year 2000 -01 was bound to follow the remand directions given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division, in his order dated 2.7.2001, unless the said order had been set aside or revised by a higher authority. This, however, does not seem to be the case here. At least no such information has been placed before us by the learned State Representative in this regard. We, therefore, do not see any need to discuss the merits of the case and remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar division, to pass final assessment order afresh in this case following the directions given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, in his order dated 2.7.2001. Since, the penalty matter is also for the same assessment year and connected to the same issue, we direct the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division to consider the penalty matter after taking a decision in the assessment matter and in accordance with the out come in the assessment matter. In view of the above, we direct the Deputy Commissioner to pass a speaking order in the assessment matter after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant and in accordance with the directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner given in his order dated 2.7.2001 within 4 months of receipt of our order. Thereafter, within a further period of one month after passing of the assessment order, an order in the penalty matter may also be passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, keeping in mind the out come of the assessment order, and after giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant. In result, the appeals are allowed and remanded with directions supra. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and pronounced on this the 29th day of April, 2010.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.