IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a review petition cannot be used to reargue settled issues and must demonstrate an apparent error on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

2. The review petitioner is the petitioner in W.P.No.20460 of 2021. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II Division, Vijayawada revised the Order of Assessment dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer, imposing tax @14.5% on the goods in question. The Order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No.II Division, dated 27.01.2021, was challenged in W.P.No.20460 of 2021. The same was disposed of, vide Order dated 20.09.2021, declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground that there was statutory remedy of appeal and thus granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) with certain observations and directions.

3. The operative part of the judgment dated 20.09.2021 is as follows:

“…9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and as the order is an appealable one, we are of the opinion that such issue may be agitated before the appellate authority in the first place. Accordingly, we give liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order before the appellate Tribunal within fortnight from date. In the event, the petitioner institutes such appeal upon making pre-deposit of 25% of the tax in dispute, there shall be suspension of realization of the remainder of the tax till the disposal of the appeal and consequently urgent notice shall also remained suspended.

However, if the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid direction and does not file appeal after making pre-deposit within the time stipulated, the urgent notice shall stand revived and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for realization of the disputed tax in question in accordance with law.

10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was that the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had no power of revision under Section 32 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short ‘AP VAT Act’), in view of its proviso to pass the order in revision. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad v. Indo National Limited, (2012) 12 SCC 778 in support of the contention that the revisional power cannot be invoked if similar question is pending or has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. Considering the said submission, as also the provision of Section 20 (2A) of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short ‘APGST Act’), as also Section 32 (2) of the AP VAT Act, as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Coordinate Bench observed that in view of the difference between those two provisions, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited was not attracted. It was observed that there was no inherent lack of jurisdiction, as any issue or question as involved before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had not been decided by the Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the issue as involved before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal at Telangana State. In view thereof, his submission is that, the judgment under review deserves to be reviewed, as there is an apparent error on the face of the judgment.

7. We are not convinced with the aforesaid submission as the same does not make out a case of any apparent error of law or even of fact in the judgment under review for the reasons to follow shortly.

8. Section 32 (2) of AP VAT Act, the proviso, which reads as under;

“Uses the expression, in respect of any issue or question, which was decided on appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 33”.

“Section 32 (2): Powers of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) may also be exercised by the Additional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in