caselaws
Supreme Court of India
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Pitchi Reddy on 3 January, 2022Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
1
[NON-REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
Civil Appeal No. 7768 OF 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
S. Pitchi Reddy .. Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No.7771 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
B. Rama Koteswara Rao ..Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No.7770 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.01.03
Versus
17:12:37 IST
Reason:
S. Pitchi Reddy ..Respondent
2
With
Civil Appeal No.7769 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
S. Pitchi Reddy ..Respondent
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh dated
13.11.2017 in Writ Petition No.37515 of 2017; Writ Petition No.37516
of 2017; Writ Petition No.37504 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.37498 of
2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions
preferred by the respondents herein – original assessees and has
quashed the respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing
Officer – Commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet Circle, Guntur, the State of
Andhra Pradesh and others have preferred the present appeals.
3
2. That the respective respondents are the registered dealers
holding VAT Registration. The Assessing Officer passed the
assessment orders for the respective assessment years and
assessed the tax by order dated 25.07.2012. The particulars in a
tabular form are as under:
Civil Appeal No. Assessment Year Assessed Tax Date of Order
Civil Appeal 2010-2011 9,10,608/- 25.07.2012
No.7768 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2008-2009 7,07,031/- 25.07.2012
No.7771 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2009-2010 10,73,119/- 25.07.2012
No.7770 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2008-2009 10,25,321/- 25.07.2012
No.7669-2021
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective
Assessment Orders, the dealers/assesses preferred the appeals
before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur. The First
Appellate Authority remanded the case to the Assessing Officer.
Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised suo
moto revisional powers vide its proceedings dated 27.07.2014
against the order by the First Appellate Authority remanding the
4
matter to the AO. The respective dealers submitted their objections.
Pending the revisional proceedings before the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notices
for making fresh assessment orders consequent to the remand of the
cases by the First Appellate Authority. The respective dealers
submitted their objections, inter alia, to the effect that when the suo
moto revisions are pending before the Commissioner, the Assessing
officer has no jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment in pursuance
of the remand order. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed fresh
assessment orders consequent upon the remand of the case by the
First Appellate Authority. Instead of preferring an appeal/appeals
before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment
orders, the dealers straight way filed writ petitions before the High
Court and by impugned judgment and orders, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the fresh assessment
orders, solely on the ground that pending suo moto revisional
proceedings, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded
further with the fresh assessment.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the
5
fresh assessment orders, the State has preferred the present
appeals. As per the Office Report, though served, nobody appears
on behalf of the respondent(s). Therefore, the hearing is proceeded
ex-parte.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the State and
considering the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High
Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and orders
passed by the High Court, quashing and setting aside the fresh
assessment orders are unsustainable.
5.1 Firstly, the High Court ought not to have directly entertained the
writ petitions challenging the fresh assessment orders. The
respective dealers – assessees ought to have availed the alternative
remedy of appeals before the First Appellate Authority which were
availed earlier when the earlier assessment orders were passed.
5.2 Secondly, because the fresh assessment orders were passed
consequent upon the remand of the case by the First Appellate
Authority pending the revisional proceedings against the order of
remand, merely on that ground alone the fresh assessment orders
could not have been set aside.
6
5.3 Nothing has been observed by the High Court on the merits of
the fresh assessment orders. If the fresh assessment orders would
have gone against the State, in that case the State would have been
the aggrieved party and the State could have raised the objection that
pending suo moto revisional proceedings against the order of
remand, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded further
with the fresh assessments. However, in the present case the fresh
assessments have gone against the respective dealers. Therefore,
as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the appeals
before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment
orders.
5.4 In view of the above, the judgment and orders passed by the
High Court quashing and setting aside the fresh assessment orders
in the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are
unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
appeals succeed. The judgment and orders passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition No.37515 of 2017; Writ Petition No.37516 of
2017; Writ Petition No.37504 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.37498 of
7
2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
January 3, 2022
Comments