Single bench dismissed revisions preferred by Revenue against TRIBunal orders quashing revisional orders deemed void for violating principles of natural justice, holding that remittal is not warranted as limitation bar may apply.
Revisions treated as without merit and dismissed at the stage of admission with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
TREVC Nos. 117 and 126 of 2012
Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its State Representative before STAT, Visakhapatnam
…Petitioner
And M/s Shankukha Traders, Uppugudur, Visakhapatnam
…Respondent.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
TREVC Nos. 117 and 126 of 2012
Common Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
These revisions under Section 22(1) of the APGST Act, 1957 are preferred by the Revenue against a common order of the STAT, Visakhapatnam Bench dated 14-3-2012 in TA Nos. 1533 and 1534 of 2004. The appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the same assessee, arrayed as respondent in these revisions, against the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Nellore Division, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeals on the ground that the revisional authority had revised the orders of assessment on the basis of material not furnished to the assessee.
Revenue does not dispute the fact that revisional orders are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The singular contention urged by Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Govt. Pleader for Commercial Taxes is that the Tribunal erred in failing to remit the revisions for a de novo consideration by the revisional authority after rightly quashing the orders of revision on the point of violation of principles of natural justice.
The contention urged in support of these revisions does not merit acceptance by this Court. Revenue does not contest the factual findings by the Tribunal that the revisional orders were still born for violation of principles of natural justice. In the event if the revisional authority may pass orders of revision afresh, from the point of a bar of limitation, it may still do so. If the bar of limitation applies and the period of limitation for passing orders in revision
has elapsed, the same cannot be extended even by the Tribunal remitting the matter to the Revisional authority.
It is axiomatic that the minimum standards of fairness require the assessee to be put on notice regarding any material adverse to him that is intended to be considered while revising an Order of Assessment. These principles are well established and have been so for over a century in this Country. If the revisional authority has been oblivious to even well established principles while exercising quasi judicial powers of revision, the statutory authority has none to blame but itself. In any view of the matter, no case is made out for revisional interference under Section 22 (1) of the APGST Act, 1957. The revisions are without merit and are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
_____________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
20th February, 2013. GRR/SCS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether revisions preferred by Revenue against Tribunal orders should be dismissed for violation of principles of natural justice without remittal.
Whether Tribunal remitting a matter for de novo consideration can overcome the bar of limitation if the limitation period has elapsed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its State Representative before STAT, Visakhapatnam
M/s Shankukha Traders
Goda Raghuram
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
