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

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.