APHC010082482010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3543] THURSDAY, THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11397 OF 2010 Between: 1. M/S. MAYUR GRANITES & MARBLES,, R.S.NO. 131/B, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, RING ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520008. KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CT LEGAL, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SURYARAOPET CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUTONAGAR CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT, VIJAYAWAD - II DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT (CT-II) SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J) The petitioner is a partnership concern carrying on business in Granite stones and registered dealer on the rolls of the 3rd respondent under Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. The 2nd respondent inspected the business premises of petitioner on 23.12.2005 alleging that some differences of turnover when compared with the physical stock with that of the books of account was found and computed tax @ 12.5% on the difference of turnover of Rs.1,23,445/- by adding Gross Profit @ 8% and arrived at the turnover of Rs.1,45,665/-. Show cause notice in Form VAT-305A dated 02.01.2006 and revised notice on 21.03.2006 was issued and the petitioner filed objections. Subsequently, Assessment Order dated 06.04.2006 was passed, against which the petitioner filed Appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority. In view of the decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Delta Lubricants, Vijayawada Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, No.1 Suryaraopet, Vijayawada 1, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority vide Order dated 13.09.2006. The Joint Commissioner (Legal)/1st respondent herein exercising the revisional powers proposed to revise the order dated 13.09.2006 of the 1st Appellate Authority and issued a show cause notice dated 05.10.2009 to the petitioner. Objections dated 28.10.2009 were filed and thereafter the 1st respondent vide order dated 29.01.2010 set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order the present Writ Petition has been filed raising various grounds. 1 43 APSTJ 27 3 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha. Also heard Mr.S.A.V.Sai Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order is biased and further stated that as the revenue has not sustained any loss by virtue of the remand order of the Appellate Authority, exercise of revisional powers by the 1st respondent is unsustainable and contrary to the well settled legal position. In elaboration he submitted that the 1st respondent/Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, who exercised the revisional power acted in biased manner. In fact, while working as the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, II Division, he himself authorized the 2nd respondent to conduct audit objections/books of accounts of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said inspection and after issuance of appropriate show cause notices, assessment proceedings were concluded, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the original authority and in such circumstances acting with prejudice to somehow caused detriment to the interest of the petitioner. The 1st respondent was went upon to interfere with the well considered decision of the 1st Appellate Authority which was rendered by taking into account the decision of the High Court. Further, as there was no loss of revenue in view of the order of remand by the Appellate Authority, which was a condition precedent for exercising the revisional jurisdiction the impugned order is liable to be declared as illegal. Reliance is placed on the 4 judgments rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sridhar Lime Products Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, No.II Division2 and Bankatlal Satyanarayana Parikh & Co., Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, A.P. and Another3 and the order dated 28.02.2020 in W.P.No.15072 of 2006, passed by a Division Bench of High Court of A.P. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ Petition. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, while refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued to sustain the Order under challenge. It is submitted that the 1st respondent exercising the revisional powers conferred on him passed the impugned order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and there is no illegality, much less infirmity calling for interference of this Court. So far as the contention with regard to allegations/bias attitude attributed to the 1st respondent, he submitted that the same is misconceived and not tenable. Authorization to the 2nd respondent in exercise of powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner/4th respondent is distinct and merely because the very same Deputy Commissioner on being appointed as Joint Commissioner exercised the revisional powers, which are altogether different, cannot be viewed as biased or prejudiced action. He submitted that there is no bar for exercise of powers by the concerned officer on whom the same were conferred. He further submitted that the judgment in Sridhar Lime Products case (2 supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Making the said 2 205 LawSuit (AP) 660 = 206 (147) STC 89 3 (2001) 122 STC 236 AP 5 submissions he urges for dismissal of the Writ Petition as the same is devoid of merits. 6. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The facts with regard to exercise of powers by the 4th respondent, who was earlier discharging functions as Deputy Commissioner acted in bias and prejudice manner and thereby interfered with the well considered order of the Appellate Authority. In Sridhar Lime Products case, on which reliance was placed, the issue is whether the person, who had earlier appeared as legal representative of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, heard and decided the very same case as Deputy Commissioner (CT). Therefore, on remand by the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal for de novo consideration. In the said case it appears that the assessee raised a specific objection and made a request to the revisional authority. Instead of recusing he proceeded further in the matter. Therefore, the Division Bench opined that the Officer/authority should have recused and not proceeded further, since his involvement at an earlier stage of the same proceedings gave rise to a real ground for doubting his ability to bring an objective judgment to bear on the issues before him. Reference in this regard was made on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Vs Girja Shankar Pant 4. Though the above said decision is slightly in a different context wherein the very same officer, who earlier appeared on behalf of Government was 4 (2001) 1 SCC 182 6 required to decide the very same case as a revisional authority, unlike in the present case where the powers are exercised, may be by the same person, but while discharging in different functions at the relevant point of time as the Deputy Commissioner and subsequently as Joint Commissioner. Be that as it may. 8. In Bankatlala Satyanarayana Parikh case a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has an occasion to examine revisional powers under Section 20(1) of APGST Act, 1957, which is pari materia to Section 32(1) of APVAT Act, 2005. For ready reference the said sections are reproduced hereunder: Section 20(1) of APGST ACT 1957 Section 32(1) of APVAT Act, 2005 20 (1)The (Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to it, under the provisions of this Act, including sub section (2) of this section and if such order or proceeding recorded is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, may make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. 32(1) The Commissioner may suo moto call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to him under the provisions of the Act, including sub-section (2) and if such order or proceeding recorded is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, may make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of the Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference thereto as he thinks fit. 9. Interpreting Section 20(1) of the Act, Division Bench at Para No.30 opined as follows: “30. A true and fair construction of the phraseology employed by the Legislature indicates that the condition precedent for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction is prejudice to the interests of revenue in the order proposed to be revised. If no such prejudice is found, the revisional power cannot avail.” 7 10. Further referring to the provisions of Income Tax Act and the precedents interpreting the words “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue”, Division Bench recorded its conclusions which reads as follows: “37. On a conspectus of the above decisions and an analysis of the provisions of section 20(1) of the Act, we hold that the expression “prejudicial to the interests of Revenue: bears the same import and must be interpreted in terms similar to the said expression occurring in section 33B of the Income-tax Act, 1922; section 263 of the 1961 Act and section 35(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957. 38. It is also the declared law that while exercising his power, the revisional authority must record a finding as to how the order under revision is prejudicial to the interests of revenue and that failure to do so would vitiate the order, vide: Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar v. Shantilala Agarwalla (1983) 142 ITR 778 (Pat.).” 11. The above referred decision, in the considered opinion of this Court, applies on all fours to the case on hand. 12. Further, 1st respondent in show cause notice dated 05.10.2009 indicated that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue warranting revision under Section 32 of APVAT Act, 2005. However, in the impugned Order there is no finding that the Order of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the absence of any finding and asthe order of the Appellate Authority is only remand to the original authority for fresh adjudication, that too in the light of the decision of High Court reported in Sridhar Lime Products (2 supra) which does not cause any prejudice, much 8 less to the interest of revenue, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 13. It is needless to observe that pursuant to the order of the remand by the Appellate Authority further proceedings, if any, may be initiated by the concerned authority. 14. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 15. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date:20.08.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 11397 OF 2010 Date:20.08.2026. Ssv