Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 = Section 20, Section 20(3)

JUDGMENT

DIVAN, C.J. - The only point which has been urged before of the assessee is regarding limitation. No other point has been urged before us at the time of the hearing of this case. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax passed his order on 12th December, 1966, allowing an appeal and setting aside the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of certain sales tax dues from the present assessee. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was served on the assessee on 14th December, 1966. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers of revision served a notice upon the petitioner on 1st December, 1970, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the order of the Assistant Commissioner should not be revised. It may be pointed out that the Commercial Tax Officer had passed the order on 30th September, 1964. Against that order, the matter was taken up in appeal by the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner, Anantapur, and order dated 12th December, 1966, was passed by the Assistant Commissioner as stated above. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee filed his objections by his reply dated 4th December, 1970. The show cause notice had called upon the assessee to show cause and to put forward his objections within seven days from the date of service of the notice. Since the notice was served upon the assessee on 1st December, 1970, the objections filed on 4th December, 1970, were within the time indicated in the show cause notice. By his order dated 11th December, 1970, the Deputy Commissioner revised the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Though the Deputy Commissioner purported to have passed the order on 11th December, 1970, the order passed by him was not served upon the assessee till 25th April, 1972. One of the questions which was argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether this order of the Deputy Commissioner could be said to be legal and valid, in view of the delay, which had taken place in serving the order, namely, the delay from 11th December, 1970, to 25th April, 1972. In the penultimate paragraph of its order the Tribunal dealt with this question. It observed :

"We have perused the draft order as well as the fair order of the Deputy Commissioner and it is doubtless that it was passed on 11th December, 1970, as the said date finds place even under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner. The records would appear to have been lying in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and they came to be despatched to the assessing authority only on 17th April, 1972, and were received by the assessing authority on 18th April, 1972. The revisional order came to be served on the appellants within a week thereof."

The Tribunal held that merely because the order the Deputy Commissioner came to be served on the appellant on 25th April, 1972, it was too much to hold, without anything more, that the Deputy Commissioner did not pass the order on 11th December, 1970, and the Tribunal pointed out that it was not the case of the assessee in the grounds of appeal that the order was not passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 11th December, 1970. The plea about the delay in serving the order was taken up for the first time when the arguments were addressed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal felt that it could not be entertained and even if it was to be entertained it was devoid of any merit.

In the final paragraph of its order, the Tribunal observed :

"Before parting with this case, we may observe that the slackness, lethargy and gross indifference displayed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Warangal, in keeping the records lying in the office for more than one year is lamentable. It is high time that the authorities concerned should find out effective ways and means to put a halt to such acts."

Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi, the le