Allowed¶50

M/S.Associated Constructions, v. the Commercial Tax Officer,Aryapuram Circle ,Rajahmundry

Sales Tax – Assessment – Reassessment – Section 14(4)(cc), Andhra Pradesh General Sales Act, 1957

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Apr 2026WP/12527/2010

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reassessment under Section 14(4)(cc) APGST Act on basis of subsequent judgment impermissible; subsequent judgments are not fresh material; assessing officer cannot revise own assessment order; revision under Section 20 APGST Act lies only with Deputy Commissioners; Gannon & Dunkerly (1996) 23 APSTJ 195; imported bitumen turnover Rs.1,68,76,305/- for assessment year 2002-2003; original assessment dated 29.03.2006; reassessment order dated 22.12.2009 set aside; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order of reassessment dated 22.12.2009 set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed. ¶50

M/S.Associated Constructions, Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order of reassessment dated 22.12.2009 set aside; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Commercial Tax Officer (the assessing officer) could pass the impugned revised/reassessment order under Section 14(4)(cc) of the APGST Act, when the petitioner contends that the very same assessing officer cannot revise an earlier assessment and that revisional power under Section 20 of the Act vests only in Deputy Commissioners. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

A revisional authority may take a different view on the basis of material already available before the assessing officer, but the assessing officer cannot pass an order of reassessment on the basis of the same material; reassessment is permissible only where material not considered in the earlier assessment order comes to light and is sufficient for reassessment.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Subsequent judgments of the court can never be treated as fresh material for taking up reassessment proceedings.

¶46

Key takeaways

In the present case the impugned reassessment was passed only on the basis of the audit party's observation that a subsequent judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had resulted in a change in law; this indicates that no fresh material was available with the assessing officer, and the reassessment order dated 22.12.2009 is therefore unsustainable and is set aside.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sales Tax – Assessment – Reassessment – Section 14(4)(cc), Andhra Pradesh General Sales Act, 1957 – An assessing officer cannot pass an order of reassessment on the basis of the same material that was before him in the original assessment; reassessment is permissible only where fresh material, not considered earlier, comes to light – Subsequent judgments of the court can never be treated as fresh material for reassessment – Revisional power under Section 20 of the APGST Act is available only to Deputy Commissioners, not the assessing officer – Impugned revised proceedings dated 22.12.2009 under Section 14(4)(cc), passed solely on the audit party's observation that the later judgment in M/s Gannon & Dunkerly (1996) 23 APSTJ 195 had changed the law on taxability of imported bitumen (Rs.1,68,76,305/-), held unsustainable – Writ petition allowed and reassessment order set aside; no costs.

¶1

APHC010245182010

¶2

[3529]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 12527/2010

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S.ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTIONS,, A.V.A.ROAD,RAJAHMUNDRY-533106, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.CH.PURNACHANDRA RAO

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ARYAPURAM CIRCLE RAJAHMUNDRY, Rajahmundry

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the order of the Respondent No.G.I.No.411120/02-03 dated 22.12.2009 served on the petitioner on 12.5.2010 as one without jurisdiction bearred by time and also in violation of principles of natural justice and unsustainable on merits and sest aside the same and pass

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WPMP 15782 OF 2010

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order of Respondent dated 22.12.2009 for the assessment year 2002-03 pending disposal of the writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶22

1.GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

¶23

¶24

The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶25

The petitioner was in the business of executing work contracts and was registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Act, 1957 [for short “the APGST Act”]. An Order of assessment, dated 29.03.2006, came to be passed against the petitioner, in relation to the assessment period 20022003. One of the issues which came up for consideration was whether the purchase of Rs.1,68,76,305/- worth of Bitumen, by way of import out of India, could be taxed or not. The assessing officer accepted the contention of the petitioner that such turnover was not liable to be taxed and completed the assessment. Thereafter, the audit party, from the office of the Accountant General, while conducting the audit, had pointed out that the subsequent Judgment, of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in the case of M/s Gannon & Dunkerly & Ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh¹ , had held that in such transactions, there are two taxable events of purchases from outside the State and a deemed sale under Section 5(f) of the APGST Act inside the State, due to which the said turnover could be taxed.

¶26

On the basis of these observations, the Commercial Tax officer passed “revised proceedings”, dated 22.12.2009, holding that the purchase of Bitumen was taxable and revised the order under Section 14(4)(cc) of the APGST Act.

¶27

Section 14(4)(cc) of the APGST Act reads as follows:-

¶28

1 (1996) 23 APSTJ 195

¶29

¶30

“Section-14: Assessment of tax

¶31

1. ..

¶32

1. ..

¶33

1. ..

¶34

1. In any of the following events, namely, where the whole or any part of the turnover of a business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, or has been under assessed or assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, or where the licence fee or registration fee has escaped levy or has been levied at a rate lower than the correct rate, the assessing authority may, after issuing a notice to the dealer, and after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, by order, setting out the grounds therefor :

¶35

a) ..

¶36

b) ..

¶37

c) assess at the correct rate the turnover that has been assessed at a lower rate;

¶38

" (cc) assess the correct amount of tax payable, in case where any deduction or exemption has been wrongly allowed;”

¶39

4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner approached this Court

¶40

by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶41

The petitioner assails the said order, both on the grounds of Jurisdiction as well as on the merits of the case. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the very same assessing officer cannot revise an earlier order of assessment. It is contended that the power of revision conferred under Section 20 of the APGST Act is only available to the Deputy Commissioners and would not be available to the assessing officer. It is further contended that

¶42

the proceedings of the assessing officer, though termed to be revised assessment orders, would have to be treated as reassessment orders. It is also pointed out that even the assessment officer had recorded that the impugned order was being passed under Section 14(4)(cc) of the APGST Act.

¶43

¶44

The petitioner contends that such an order of reassessment is permissible only when fresh material, which was not available at the time of the passing of the order, comes to the notice of the assessing officer. It is only on such fresh material that an order of reassessment can be passed.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the order has been passed to bring it into line with the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and that the said law was not available prior to the passing of the original order of the assessment.

¶46

It is settled law that the distinction between a revisional proceeding and a reassessment proceeding is that the revisional authority is entitled to take a different view, on the basis of the material which was available before the assessing officer. However, the assessing officer cannot pass an order of reassessment, on the basis of the same material. An order of reassessment is permissible only where material which had not been considered by the assessing officer, in the earlier assessment order, comes to light and such material is sufficient for conducting a reassessment. In this context, it must also be made clear that the subsequent Judgments of the Court can never be treated as fresh material, for taking up reassessment proceedings.

¶47

In the present case, the impugned order of reassessment, had been passed only on the basis of the observations of the audit party, that the

¶48

¶49

subsequent Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had resulted in a change in law. This clearly indicates that there is no fresh material available with the assessing officer who had passed this order of reassessment.

¶50

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order of reassessment order, dated 22.12.2009. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

________________________

¶53

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶54

_________________

¶55

T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date:- 27.04.2026 BSM

¶56

¶57