Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner, Commercial ... on 28 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: [1994]93STC273(AP)
JUDGMENT Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The validity of the notice dated May 10, 1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, the respondent herein, calling upon the petitioner to produce all their books of account for the year 1983-84 is questioned in the writ petition. Before the issuance of the impugned notice, the respondent issued the notice dated March 29, 1988 to the petitioner to produce their books of account along with the purchase and sale bills, way bill books, "C" form and "F" form books and other connected records relating to their business for the year 1983-84. It was mentioned in the notice that if the petitioner fails to produce the above records, exemption granted by the assessing authority under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1983-84 will be withdrawn and action as contemplated under law will also be taken. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner for production of accounts with a view to verify whether the dealer was really eligible for exemption on certain items of turnover which were not discussed in detail in the assessment order.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Raji Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the assessing authority passed the assessment order after verification' of the books of account produced by the petitioner for the year 1983-84 and granted exemption on certain items of turnover both under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, after having been satisfied that the petitioner was eligible for such exemption. However, the objection raised against the impugned show cause notice is that the respondent intends to make a fishing and roving enquiry into the entire matter under the guise of calling for the records and such action is not warranted under the provisions of section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act which reads as follows, to the extent it is relevant :
"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.
(2) Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer in the case of orders passed or proceedings recorded by authorities, officers or persons subordinate to them."
3. There can be no doubt that the Deputy Commissioner who is the respondent herein, is competent to exercise the power of suo motu revision under section 20(1). He has specifically stated both in the impugned notice as well as in the counter-affidavit filed by him that he has not yet initiated proceedings under section 20 of the Act and that he wanted to make an enquiry before initiating such proceedings to revise or modify the assessment order. Section 20 contemplates such an enquiry if the order or proceedings recorded by the subordinate officer is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The notice dated March 29, 1988 which was issued by the respondent to the petitioner mentions that if the petitioner fails to produce the records required to be produced by it, exemption granted by the assessing authority under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1983 will be withdrawn. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated, that the assessing authority did not discuss in detail in the assessment order about the eligibility of the petitioner to claim exemption on certain items of turnover and therefore he wanted to verify whether the petitioner was really eligible for such exemption or not. The impugned notice does not specify in respect of which items of turnover, the petitioner is required to produce the books of accounts and other relevant material. Therefore, the petitioner has expressed his difficulty in producing the relevant books of account.
4. From the material on record, it is evident that the respondent wanted to enquire into the matter by verification of the account books before initiating proceedings to revise, modify or set aside the order of assessment. He is competent to make such an enquiry under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act provided if the order of assessment is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the exercise of such power, he can call upon the dealer to produce the relevant account books. On a perusal of the impugned notice along with the notice dated March 29, 1988, it is evident that the respondent wanted to verify the account books in order to satisfy himself whether the exemption granted in respect of certain items of turnover by the assessing authority was valid or not. However, he did not mention the specific items of turnover in respect of which the petitioner shall produce the books of account. Therefore, we direct that the respondent shall issue a proper notice to the petitioner in the exercise of power under section 20 and continue further proceedings in accordance with law. We also make it clear that it is open to the respondent to initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside the order of assessment in exercise of the power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200.
6. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.