APHC010243332003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY,THE SECOND 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: 118/2003 Between: 1. S.T.A.T., HYD, - ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S RAVI ALUMINIUM METAL WORKS, - ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SPL GP FOR TAXES Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A K JAISWAL 2 The Court made the following order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) The assessing authority of the petitioner initiated provisional assessment proceedings against the petitioner for the year 1987-1988. The assessing authority, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, passed an order of provisional assessment raising certain tax demands and also an order of penalty. Aggrieved by these two orders, the respondent filed Tribunal Appeal No.426 of 1997 against the order of provisional assessment and Tribunal Appeal No.427 of 1997 against the order of penalty. Both these appeals came to be allowed, and the appellate authority remanded the matters back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration. 2. Pursuant to the order of assessment, dated 03.02.1990, the assessing authority passed final assessment proceedings for the said year on 04.06.1991. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner issued a show-cause notice, dated 22.02.1995 proposing to revise the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner had thereafter set aside the order of Appellate Deputy Commissioner and affirmed the earlier provisional order of assessment of tax and levy of penalty. This order of the Additional Commissioner was assailed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3 2. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, had accepted the contention of the respondent that the provisional order of assessment passed by the assessing authority had merged with the final order of the assessment and consequently, the Additional Commissioner could not have interfered with the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, nor could have confirmed the provisional order of assessment and penalty imposed by the assessing authority. The Tribunal after accepting the said contention of the respondent, had set aside the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 3. The State is now before this Court, being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, dated 27.07.2001. 4. As can be seen from the facts, the order of provisional assessment passed by the assessing authority had been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner by the order, dated 17.01.2001 and the assessing authority upon such remand, had passed order of final remand on 04.06.1991. Once such an order is passed, the provisional order of assessment would merge with the order of final assessment. In such circumstances, the revival of the provisional order of assessment would not be permissible, as the provisional order does not survive independently after the final assessment is made. 5. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the revision case and it is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. Accordingly, this Tax Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 02.02.2026 KA 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 118/2003 Date: 02.02.2026 KA