ROXY STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is M/s. Roxy Steel Re -Rolling Mill, Langer House, Hyderabad. They are manufacturers of re -rolled products i.e., CTD bars and M.S. rounds and angles etc., They are assessees on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam. The final assessment order for the assessment year 1985 -86 under APGST Act had been passed by Commercial Tax Officer on 26 -03 -1987. The revisional authority revised the order on 16 -11 -1987 by withdrawing the set off of tax granted to the appellants in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 774, dated 9 -7 -1985 finding that there is no evidence placed by the dealers. Aggrieved by the assessment the appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal vide Appeal No. 138/88. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner (CT)., for ascertaining "the tax payable in the light of the discussion and then give set off to the extent of tax payable by the sellers of raw materials to the appellants." It also directed that the appellant to produce necessary materials to prove to what extent the tax was assessable in the hands of sellers in their sales of raw material. The above order was passed by this Tribunal on 10 -07 -1990. However, the Deputy Commissioner (CT)., passed an order on 30 -06 -2001 determining the Net Turnover and the tax due thereon. Aggrieved by the above, the present appeal has been preferred. In the appeal grounds it has been contended as follows. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)., failed to follow the decision of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Ritesh Trading Corporation case (22 APSTJ 183) to the effect that the service of order on State Representative is service on revision or assessing authority. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)., erred in holding that limitation runs from 24 -12 -1998 when his office received Xerox copy of the Tribunal order. The limitation does not get extended by reason of departmental lapses or the convenience of authorities in receiving the order copy. In fact the order dated 30 -06 -2001 is served on the appellant on 05 -03 -2002 more than 8 months after it is said to be passed. The order is evidently ante dated to save limitation in the absence of any explanation for the unreasonable delay. At the time of hearing, the appellant stated that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)., are barred by time. The State Representative did not state anything. In view of the contentions raised, now the point that arises for consideration before us is:

(2.) POINT : It has been contended by the appellant's Counsel that this Tribunal passed an order in 1990 and the revisional authority passed its order 11 years later. It is stated that the period fixed under the Act is 3 years from the date of receipt of the order for making any reassessment after the directions given by the Tribunal or Courts. He referred to Section 24 -A of APGST Act. Section 24 -A deals with limitation in respect of certain assessment or reassessment order. It runs as here under.

(3.) A reading of the above decision indicates that as and when the orders are served on the State Representative for onward transmission of the same to the revisional authority the State Representative cannot contend that he did not dispatch them or that they were not received by either the revisional authority or the assessing authority. The observation made by the High Court of the Andhra Pradesh in the above decision indicate that otherwise there is risk of running of limitation to pass fresh revisional orders or reassessment orders whenever the matter is remanded for such purpose by the Tribunal. In the present case also similarly the Department has run the risk on account of the fact the revisional authority was obliged to take Xerox copy of the order in the year 1998. The order of remand has been made in the year 1990 but actually the revisional authority contends that it received the Xerox copy of the order 8 years later in the year 1998. But when once copy of the same was sent to the lower authorities, as well as State Representative in view of the above decision it is deemed under law that it has been served on the revisional authority. Hence, the order passed by the revisional authority is absolutely barred by time.