APHC010328652007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 19692/2007 Between: 1. M/S SRI PRASANNANJANEYA DALL PRODUCERS, NARSARAOPET., REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O/ SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NARSARAOPET CIRCLE GUNTUR, Represented by its Proprietor K.Sambasiva Rao, S/o/ Subba Rao, Aged about 33 years, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari after calling for the entire connected records in relation tothe impugned revision proceedings dated 16-06-2007 in G.I.No.17337/2001-02 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Narsaraopet, Guntur District by holding the said procedings as illegal, withoutjurisdiction and without authority of law and contrary to the principles ofnatural justice in as much as the order is passed without considering the objections filed by the Petitioner on 01-03-2007 as also revising the order pased bythe self same authority or alternatively holding the action of the Respondent in revising its own order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary tothe law laid down bythis 2 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 Hon'ble Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently direct the Respondent not to enforcethe impugned proceedings on the Petitioner and grant such other relief or reliefs as are deemed to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP 25384 OF 2007 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 direct the Respondent not to take any coercive action for the recovery of any tax relating to the assessment year 2001-02 pursuant tothe impugned proceedings pending disposal of the Writ Petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP 10539 OF 2008 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 modify the order passed in WPMP NO. 25384/2007, dated 14-02-2008 and request this Hon'ble Court to set aside the assessment order and dispose of the Writ Petition or to modify the order with a direction directing the Petitioner to deposit 1/4th of the disputed tax, else the Petitioner would be put to serious loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V J K KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP) 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner deals with pulses and was registered under the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. An inspection of the premises of the petitioner was carried out, on 25.12.2001 & 28.01.2002. This inspection revealed certain discrepancies of turnovers, in relation to purchases and sales. The petitioner accepted the discrepancies and gave a statement for payment of tax and compounding fee on the turnovers, which had not been reported by the petitioner. These statements were recorded, on 27.01.2001 & 28.01.2002. However, the petitioner failed to pay the tax and compounding fee, despite the statements made by the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, a provisional assessment is said to have been carried out, on 27.02.2002, for the turnovers upto 30.01.2002. This provisional assessment is also said to have been served on the petitioner, on 07.03.2002. After the receipt of this order, the petitioner filed its annual audit reports, disclosing their purchase and sale turnovers, for the year 2001-2002, on 31.12.2002. A formal order on the basis of the turnovers, disclosed in the returns, was passed, on 11.01.2003. It appears that, the turnovers on which tax was levied, by way of the provisional assessment order, dated 27.02.2002, was not taken into account, in the assessment order of 11.01.2003. 4. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer again initiated proceedings for bringing these escaped turnovers to tax and passed an order of assessment, 4 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 dated 31.07.2004. This order though called as a revisional order, was actually a reassessment, under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, dated 31.07.2004, approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.15991 of 2004. The erstwhile High Court, by an Order, dated 22.09.2004, had set aside the said order, on the ground that, the petitioner had not been given notice of the proceedings prior to the passing of the order. After the remand by the erstwhile High Court, fresh proceedings were initiated, where by a show-cause notice, dated 18.12.2006, was served on the petitioner, on 01.03.2007, along with the incriminating material. As the petitioner kept taking time, orders of assessment were passed, on 16.06.2007. These orders of assessment are under challenge before this Court. 5. Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that, any order, which is prejudicial to revenue, passed by an Assessing Officer, can be revised only under Section 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. He contends that Section (14) 4 of the A.P.V.A.T. Act, would be available to a Assessing Officer only if fresh material, which was not available to the Assessing Officer, at the time of passing of order of assessment, had been subsequently found. He would also submit that, the proceedings of the Authorities as well as the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents, would show that, the material relied upon, by the Assessing Officer, in the order, dated 16.06.2007, was material, which was already available to the Assessing Officer even prior to the passing of the 5 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 original order of assessment, dated 11.01.2003. He would also submit that, in such circumstances, the order passed under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that, this is a clear case of tax evasion, specially in view of the fact that, the petitioner had admitted to the evasion of tax and had offered to pay tax as well as compounding fee to get out of the liabilities that would otherwise arose against the petitioner. He would submit that, in such circumstances, the order of the Assessing Officer, which is under challenge, has been passed strictly, in accordance with Law. 7. Section 14 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, is a machinery provision, providing for the manner in which the assessments are to be carried out and the timelines within which such assessments are carried out. Section 14 (4) of the Act, also provides for an opportunity to an Assessing Officer to correct any mistakes, in the event of fresh material being placed, before the Assessing Authority, after the order of assessment had been passed. In the absence of any fresh material, the question of exercising jurisdiction under Section 14(4) of the Act, would not arise. This view has already been expressed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ratna Sree Box Makers1. 1 [1989] 75 STC 82 (AP) 6 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 8. In the present case, there was material showing evasion of tax. This material was available to the Assessing Officer even before the order of assessment, dated 11.01.2003, was passed. In such circumstances, further reassessment, under Section 14(4) of the Act, on the basis of such material, is not permissible. The Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner could have taken steps, under Section 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, to ensure that the order, dated 11.01.2003, which was prejudicial to the interest of revenue, was reversed. However, this action was not taken. 9. In these circumstances, this Court has no option except to hold that the order, dated 16.06.2007, passed by the Assessing Officer, is without jurisdiction and the said order is hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 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:17.03.2026 KPV 7 RRR,J & TCDS,J W.P.No.19692 of 2007 311 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.19692 of 2007 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 17.03.2026 KPV