CHAND AUCTION HALL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-2009-8-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on August 03,2009

Chand Auction Hall Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Manoranjan Virk, Member (A) - (1.) THIS appeal filed against the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad for the assessment year 1986 -87 (APGST). In the grounds of appeal and at the time of hearing before us, the appellant has stated that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has dismissed their appeal on the grounds that the appeal had been filed against the consequential order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Since the said order of the Commercial Tax Officer was passed as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner who revised the first assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner took the view that he being a co -ordinate authority of the same rank of the Deputy Commissioner was not the right person to be approached for filing an appeal against an order which was passed only to give effect to the Deputy Commissioner's revision order. The appellant has further stated that they could not file an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order as they received neither the pre -revision show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner nor the revision order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. They submitted that they came to know about the order of the Deputy Commissioner only on receipt of the consequential order of the Commercial Tax Officer, dated 8.2.1993. Hence, in their opinion since they were prevented from filing an appeal against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner as they were unaware of both the show cause notice and the said order the Appellate Deputy Commissioner should have entertained their appeal.
(2.) THE learned State Representative has supported the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and has also produced before us departmental record to show that the pre -revision show cause notice dated 3.2.1992 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad was received by one Mr. Mohed Siddique Hussain for Mohed Chand Auction Hall on the same day i.e., 3.2.1992. Further, he has shown from record that the revision order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, dated 15.2.1992 was dispatched to the appellant on 15.6.1992 under the circumstances, according to the State Representative, it is factually incorrect on the part of the appellant to plead ignorance about the existence of the pre -revision show cause notice or the revision order of the Deputy Commissioner. He has further stated that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has rightly refused to entertain an appeal on an order of the Commercial Tax Officer, which was passed only to give effect to the revisional proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order does not lie before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as they are coordinate authorities of the same rank. Heard both sides. The impugned order before us is that of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who rejected the appeal of the appellant as not entertainable in view of the fact that any appeal against the consequential order which was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer to give effect to the revision order of the Deputy Commissioner does not lie before him. In our opinion, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner took the legally correct view as the consequential order is only a continuation or an appendage of the revisional authority's order and cannot be regarded to be an independent proceeding. As the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are coordinate authorities of the same rank no appeal against an order passed in consequence to and to give effect to the orders of a Deputy Commissioner can be entertained by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Act does not provide for the same. The right course of action, therefore, would have been for the appellant to appeal against the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner which was not done by them. In view of the above, we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him and pronounced on this the 3rd day of August, 2009.;


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