U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M/s. U.P. State Bridge Corporation, Hyderabad, has filed this appeal against the common order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad Rural Division, Hyderabad, dated. 31.1.2001 for the assessment year 1987 -88. The appellant has carried the matter in appeal to this Tribunal on being aggrieved by the order of the lower authorities. This matter being the subject matter of appeals in T.A. Nos. 51/94, 52/94, 53/94 & 126/94, this Tribunal passed a common order on 17.2.1995, allowing the appeal in T.A. No. 126/94 and remanding the remaining appeals to the assessing authority for fresh disposal according to law as per the observations made in the judgment and after giving due opportunity to the appellant to prove his contentions in T.A. Nos. 51/94, 52/94 & 53/94. In response to the directions of this Tribunal, show cause notices were issued to the appellant by the Commercial Tax Officer. However, the appellant sought adjournment of the matter for two months. Thereafter, the appellant did not file any reply or seek any personal hearing from the C.T.O. On 12.3.1998, the CTO., passed an order confirming the proposals made in the revised show cause notice which was issued as per directions of this Tribunal.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who after hearing the appeal and going through the records dismissed the appeal. The appellant has preferred an appeal against the Appellate Deputy Commissioner's order before us. According to the appellant, firstly the order passed by the C.T.O., is time barred. According to him, the date of service of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's Order on the State Representative was 25.2.1995 and as such the C.T.O., should have passed the orders as per the directions of this Tribunal within three years from that date. Since, the C.T.O., has passed this order on 12.3.98, this order is time barred.

(3.) THE learned State Representative has disagreed with the appellants counsel that the revisional order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is time barred. According to the State Representative, earlier there was a practice of serving the orders on the Commercial Tax Officer through the State Representative. The order of this Tribunal relied upon by the appellant pertains to that period. Thereafter, this practice was discontinued and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal started serving orders on the assessing authorities and revisional authorities directly. Since during this period, it was not the duty of the State Representative to serve the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the Commercial Tax Officer and the orders of the STAT were served on the Commercial Tax Officer directly, the date of service of order on the State Representative cannot be taken as the relevant date for calculating the period of three years according to the State Representative. He has further stated that the C.T.O., has given adequate opportunity to the appellant by issuing a show cause notice for revision as per the directions of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. On receipt of reply to this show cause notice from the appellant seeking adjournment, the CTO., has further waited for almost a period of 2 years when the appellant neither filed written objections nor sought a personal hearing and since the limitation period was coming to an end the C.T.O., has rightly passed an order on the last date of the three year period. Thus, no fault can be found with the C.T.O., either on the time bar issue or on the principles of natural justice, according to the State Representative.