DECCAN ENGINEERS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-8-52
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 25,1992

DECCAN ENGINEERS Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - (1.)THIS is an assessee's revision petition filed under section 22(1) of the APGST Act, (in short "the Act"). The petitioner claimed exemption with regard to certain sales. The said claim of the petitioner was accepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad rural at Secunderabad by his order of assessment passed on 23 -10 -1981. Under Section 20(2) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner proposed to revise that order, but, however, dropped the proceedings on 15 -10 -1985. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under section 20 of the Act, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) by his order dated 18 -5 -1987. The Correctness of this order was assailed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1555/87. By order dated 18 -7 -90, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the same on merits. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present revision petition is filed.
(2.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy urged two contentions before us. First Sri D. Siva Prasad, I.A.S., who passed the order dated 18 -5 -87 in the capacity of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), was only placed incharge of the post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) and, therefore, under section 20 of the Act, he has no authority to exercise the powers of revision so as to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner and as such the order is without jurisdiction. Second, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal against the order of the Joint Commissioner therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is illegal. In so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it may be noticed that by orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 981, Revenue dated 28 -7 -87, the post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), was filled up by appointing Sri D. Siva Prasad, IAS. The Notification reads follows :
"Sri D. Sivaprasad, IAS, Secretary to Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is placed in full additional charge of the non -cadre post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) in the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad with effect from 28th November 1986 and shall to exercise all the powers of Joint Commissioner (Legal) Statutory and administrative and perform all the duties assigned to the Joint Commissioner (Legal)"

(3.)FROM a perusal of the above notification, it is clear that Sri Siva Prasad was placed in full additional charge of the non -cadre post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) in the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with effect from 28 -11 -86. The notification further provides that he shall exercise all the powers of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal). Thus, it is clear that though Sri Siva Prasad belongs to the cadre of I.A.S. he was placed in full additional charge of the post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) with jurisdiction to exercise all the powers of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), statutory as well as administrative and to discharge all duties assigned to the post of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal). In view of the orders issued by the Government, in our view, the contention that Sri Siva Prasad, I.A.S. had no jurisdiction to take up the proceedings of revision under section 20(2) of the Act, is untenable. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore fails.
;


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