Skip to content


The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Parasu Kuppuswamy Chetty and Sons - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Case Nos. 47, 57 and 64 to 66 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1981]48STC1(AP)
ActsAndhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 1(2), 2, 2(1), 3, 4, 5, 5(1), 6, 7, 7(1), 8, 9, 9(2), 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 20(2) and 30; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 6(1A), 8, 9 and 9(2)
AppellantThe State of Andhra Pradesh
RespondentParasu Kuppuswamy Chetty and Sons
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer..........cannot be applied to the facts of these four cases. according to him, that was not a case where a deputy commissioner, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the a.p. general sales tax act, had restored the assessment order having regard to the validation act. according to him, that was only a case where an assessment has been set aside and sought to be revived by a validation act. he distinguishes that case by stating that after section 11 of the a.p. general sales tax act was struck down by this court in k. venkata ramana v. state of a.p. ([1969] 24 s.t.c. 367), revisions by the deputy commissioner became validated by virtue of the provisions of act 9 of 1970. the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend that it is not possible to draw any such.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Obul Reddi, C.J.

1. We are of the opinion that these four tax revision cases should be referred to a Full Bench of three Judges. Mr. D. V. Sastri, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner in all the cases, submitted that the decision of this Court in Konathala Audinarayana and Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer, Anakapalli ([1977] 39 S.T.C. 547), cannot be applied to the facts of these four cases. According to him, that was not a case where a Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, had restored the assessment order having regard to the Validation Act. According to him, that was only a case where an assessment has been set aside and sought to be revived by a Validation Act. He distinguishes that case by stating that after section 11 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act was struck down by this Court in K. Venkata Ramana v. State of A.P. ([1969] 24 S.T.C. 367), revisions by the Deputy Commissioner became validated by virtue of the provisions of Act 9 of 1970. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend that it is not possible to draw any such distinction between assessments which have been made by an assessing authority and assessments revived by a Deputy Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because of the Validation Act and, as such, there should have been fresh assessments as held by the Division Bench. As the question raised is of importance, the decision of this Court is sought to be distinguished by the Government Pleader. We, therefore, direct these four cases to be posted before a Full Bench.

2. The question that requires to be resolved in these cases is :

'Whether the assessments in dispute can be said to be subsisting by virtue of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Act 9 of 1970) ?'

[In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference the cases came on for hearing before the Full Bench.]

3. The Government Pleader for Home, for the petitioner.

4. S. Dasaratharama Reddi (T.R.C. Nos. 47, 57 and 66 of 1977), T. Ramam (T.R.C. No. 64 of 1977) and E. Manohar (T.R.C. No. 65 of 1977), for the respondents.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //