Skip to content


M. Ramakrishnaiah and Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Revision Petition No. 50 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1976]38STC537(AP)
AppellantM. Ramakrishnaiah and Co.
RespondentState of Andhra Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateS. Dasaratharama Reddi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateThe Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....affect the proceedings pending as on the date of its coming into force before the civil courts or appellate, revisional or executing courts. these cases are required to be decided without reference to and applications of the provisions of the amendment act, 2005. undisputedly when the landlords filed their suits, the rent prescribed in the notification in force for the purpose of exempting buildings was rs.1,000/- and above. the landlords were therefore entitled under common law to approach the civil courts for seeking eviction of their tenants by availing the remedy of civil suits. in the absence of the amended provision being given retrospective operation, the crystallised rights of landlords on dates of their filing the civil suits cannot be taken away by reading amended provisions..........of the andhra pradesh general sales tax act, revised the order of the commercial tax officer. the deputy commissioner passed the order on 6th january, 1973. but the order of revision was served upon the assessee only on 21st november, 1973. it was urged in the appeal against the order of the deputy commissioner when the matter was argued before the sales tax appellate tribunal that the order passed by the deputy commissioner was not within the period of limitation laid down by section 20. we have, by our judgment today in khetmal parekh and co. v. state of a.p. [1976] 38 s.t.c. 531, (t.r.c. no. 1 of 1976), considered a similar argument and rejected the argument and, therefore, to that extent the order of the tribunal regarding the period of limitation prescribed under section 20(3) was.....
Judgment:

B.J. Divan, C.J.

1. The matter is before us at the admission stage and we have admitted the appeal today. Mr. Sastry, the learned Government Pleader, takes notice and the matter has been argued before us. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, revised the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 6th January, 1973. But the order of revision was served upon the assessee only on 21st November, 1973. It was urged in the appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner when the matter was argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was not within the period of limitation laid down by Section 20. We have, by our judgment today in Khetmal Parekh and Co. v. State of A.P. [1976] 38 S.T.C. 531, (T.R.C. No. 1 of 1976), considered a similar argument and rejected the argument and, therefore, to that extent the order of the Tribunal regarding the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20(3) was correct.

2. However, in view of the delay which has taken place between the passing of the order of revision by the Deputy Commissioner on 6th January, 1973, and the service of that order on the assessee on 21st November, 1973, it must be held, on the facts of this case, that the delay that took place was unreasonable and inordinate.

3. Again, as in that case, as we have pointed out in our judgment in Khetmal Parekh and Co. v. Stats of A.P. [1976] 38 S.T.C. 531, (T.R.C. No. 1 of 1976) on the ground of unreasonable delay in the service of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, each case must be judged on its own facts and, in our opinion, the delay of more than ten months in serving the order of revision is certainly unreasonable and inordinate. The Tribunal has pointed out that normally notices are served upon the parties within one week and there is no reason why a period of ten and a half months should elapse before the order of the Deputy Commissioner is served upon the assessee concerned. On this ground, therefore, this revision is allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside. In view of the fact that this point was not urged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the decision regarding the inordinate delay we are not dealing with the other contentions which have been put forth in the revision. Advocate's fee Rs. 250.


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