DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THE above revision petitions were filed by the revision petitioners against the common order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner, (CT), kakinada in the appeal Nos. E-94/98-99, e-95/98-99, E-96/98-99 and E-97/98-99 in allowing the appeals and remanding the matters to the assessing authority with a direction to issue fresh notice to the appellants and after giving an opportunity to them and to consider their objections and to pass the assessment orders afresh.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the revisions are as follows:

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa Theatre at Thuni and he paid the Entertainment Tax under section 4 of the A. P. Entertainments Tax act, 1939 (for short the Act ) up to 31. 12. 1983. Subsequently, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were amended and the revision petitioner challenged the amendment in W. P. No. 7241 of 1984 which was subsequently dismissed. The revision petitioner thereupon filed the civil appeal in Supreme Court which was dismissed^in Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 1985 dated 10. 5. 1993. The Supreme Court further upheld the validity of the amended provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. There was an interim direction when the writ petition was filed in the High Court. After the dismissal of the Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court, the assessing authority issued a notice and determined the difference of tax payable. The revision petitioner took several objections and the main objection was that in the absence of assessments within the period of limitation, the demand is illegal and is barred by limitation. The assessing authority overruled the objections and passed the assessment orders, but the appellate Deputy Commissioner held that the assessment was within the period of limitation but the assessing officer has not given reasonable opportunity and considered the objections raised by the assessee and therefore remanded the matter for fresh disposal for giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the common order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) Kakinada, the revision petitioner filed the above four revisions contending that the order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner is illegal and not maintainable. The Appellate Deputy commissioner ought to have held that the assessment orders dated 22. 6. 1998 are barred by limitation inasmuch as they were passed beyond six years. The assessing authority has not given reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioner and has not considered the objections filed and therefore the order of the Appellate Deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) NOW the following questions of law are involved in the above revisions:1. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner is justified in not upholding the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of specific period of limitation under the act for completion of assessment is one year from the end of relevant quarter which is the reasonable time? 2. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner erred in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that in the event of six years being the outer time limit contemplated under law even for assessing escaped assessment, six years from the end of the relevant quarter should be considered as outer limit for completing the assessment? 3. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in not accepting the contention of the petitioner that the orders of assessment passed as late as 11 years after the end of the relevant quarter are barred by limitation, as the same was not passed within six years from the end of the relevant quarter? 4. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High court and Supreme Court should be excluded though the said orders operated only in regard to collection of tax but not to the completion of assessment proceedings as such? 5.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document