SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 256

B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
State of A. P. – Appellant
Versus
M. RAMAKISHTAIAH AND COMPANY – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the A. P. High court allowing the tax revision case filed by the respondent-assessee under section 22 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. The order of assessment was made in the month of September, 1969. That order was sought to be revised by the Deputy Commissioner under Ss. (2 of section 20 of the Act. After hearing the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner passed orders prejudicial to the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner says that he passed the said orders on 6/01/1973, but it was served upon the assessee only on 21/11/1973. According to section 20, an order in revision must he passed within four years of the order of assessment. In this case, service of this order is after the expiry of four years from the date of the order of assessment. In the circumstances, the assessee raised a contention that the order was in fact made after the expire of four years but was ante-dated, and therefore, it is bad. The High court accepted this submission but on a different reasoning. The High court was of the opinion that every order must be communicated within a reasonable period and since the order of the Deputy Commissioner in this case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top