State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. S. Pitchi Reddy.

FACTS-

 That the respective respondents are the registered dealers holding VAT

Registration.

 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and orders

passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the fresh assessment orders, the

State has preferred the present appeals. As per the Office Report, though served, nobody

appears on behalf of the respondent(s). Therefore, the hearing is proceeded ex-parte.

 However, in the present case the fresh assessments have gone against the

respective dealers. Therefore, as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the

appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment orders.

 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective Assessment Orders, the

dealers/assesses preferred the appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT),

Guntur. The First Appellate Authority remanded the case to the Assessing Officer.

Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised suo-moto revisional

powers vide its proceedings dated 27.07.2014 against the order by the First Appellate

Authority remanding the matter to the AO.

 The respective dealers submitted their objections. Pending the revisional

proceedings before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the Assessing Officer

issued show cause notices for making fresh assessment orders consequent to the remand

of the cases by the First Appellate Authority. The respective dealers submitted their

objections, inter alia, to the effect that when the suo moto revisions are pending before

the Commissioner, the Assessing officer has no jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment

in pursuance of the remand order.

 Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment orders consequent

upon the remand of the case by the First Appellate Authority. Instead of preferring an

appeal/appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment orders,

the dealers straight way filed writ petitions before the High Court and by impugned

judgment and orders, the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and quashed

the fresh assessment orders, solely on the ground that pending suo-moto revisional

proceedings, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded further with the fresh

assessment.


PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Orders passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of

Andhra Pradesh dated 13.11.2017 in Writ Petition, by which the High Court has

allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein ,original assesses,

and has quashed the respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer –

Commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet Circle, Guntur, the State of Andhra Pradesh and

others have preferred the present appeals.


ISSUES RAISED

Whether the judgment and orders passed by the High Court are sustainable or not.


JUDGEMENT/ORDER RAISED BY THE COURT

In view of the above, the judgment and orders passed by the High Court quashing and

setting aside the fresh assessment orders in the writ petitions under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India are unsustainable.


CONCLUSION-

 Firstly, the High Court ought not to have directly entertained the writ petitions

challenging the fresh assessment orders. The respective dealers – assesses ought to have

availed the alternative remedy of appeals before the First Appellate Authority which

were availed earlier when the earlier assessment orders were passed.

 Secondly, because the fresh assessment orders were passed consequent upon the

remand of the case by the First Appellate Authority pending the revisional proceedings

against the order of remand, merely on that ground alone the fresh assessment orders

could not have been set aside.

 Nothing has been observed by the High Court on the merits of the fresh

assessment orders. If the fresh assessment orders would have gone against the State, in

that case the State would have been the aggrieved party and the State could have raised

the objection that pending suo moto revisional proceedings against the order of remand,

the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded further with the fresh assessments.

However, in the present case the fresh assessments have gone against the respective

dealers. Therefore, as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the appeals

before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment orders.



This article is written by Vaibhavi Vora of Pravin Gandhi College Of Law, Mumbai.

Recent Posts

See All

Heading – John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher Citation –John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 Names Of Judges Involved in the Judgment – L