The State Of Ap, Rep.By State Representative Before Stat, Vi vs. M/S Nachu Satyanarayana, Bheemavaram.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
1
APHC010414602008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 91/2008 Between:
THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT, VI, REP.BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT, MEGHANA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, OPP; GURUDWARA BUS STOP,
...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S NACHU SATYANARAYANA BHEEMAVARAM, Bheemavaram.
...RESPONDENT take the TRC on file and set aside the orders of the Hon'ble STAT,. Visakhapatnam Bench, in TA.NO. 1061/2005 dated 25-2-2008 Counsel for the Petitioner:
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent:
SHAIK JEELANI BASHA
2
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The assessment, for the year 1998-99 of the respondent herein, under the A.P.GST Act was completed by way of final assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 30.03.2000. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru Division initiated revisional proceedings. However, these revisional proceedings were dropped by order dated 24.10.2002. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, took a view that the revisional proceedings should not have been dropped and initiated fresh revisional proceedings culminated in the order of Revision dated 24.08.2005. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of Revision, the respondent approached the Appellate Tribunal raising various grounds on merits and also on the ground that a 2nd Revision is not permissible and the further ground that the impugned order of Revision is beyond limitation.
The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent that the order of Revision is beyond limitation and set aside the order. The Tribunal had also gone into the merits of the case.
Aggrieved by the same, the State has approached before this Court.
The short ground before this Court is whether the impugned revision was within time.
Section 20 of the AP GST Act provides for revision of orders, that are prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.
Section 20(3) states as follows In relation to an order of assessment passed under this Act, the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within such period not exceeding four years
3
from the date on which the order was served on the dealer, as may be prescribed.
In the present case, the order of assessment was passed on 30.03.2000. The date of service of the said order is not available. However, the said date was presumed to be date of passing of order dated 30.03.2000. The period of limitation within which the Revision would have taken up is 4 years from the date of service of the order of assessment. This would be 29.03.2004. However, the order, under revision, came to be passed only on 24.08.2005. 9. Even if, further time is added, from 30.03.2000, on the ground that the actual date of service is not available, such period cannot be extended by more than one year, failing which, the order of revision would still be outside the period of limitation.
Viewed from any angle, it is clear that the impugned order of revision was beyond limitation.
In such circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Tax Revision case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.
_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J SSA 09.02.2026
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.