Tax assessments and revisions must rely on new materials; pre-existing information cannot justify revisional authority under Section 14(4) of the Act.

ORDER :

P. Sam Koshy, J.

Heard Mr. B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. Since the issue involved in the instant Tax Revision Cases is one and the same, and the parties also being the same, they are heard together and are decided by this Common Order.

3. The instant Tax Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 1957 (for short ‘APGST Act’) challenging the common order dated 07.06.2008, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (for short ‘STAT’) in Tax Appeal Nos.1557 & 1282 of 2001.

4. Tax Revision Case No.117 of 2010 is one against the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. Whereas, Tax Revision Case No.277 of 2010 is one where the order of penalty imposed passed by the Assessing Officer is under challenge.

5. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a timber merchant. The petitioner submitted his annual returns on 31.05.1999. Subsequently, it is said that an inspection was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 21.07.1999 wherein certain incriminating material was found in the course of inspection in respect of some income generated by the petitioner during the year in which he had not disclosed returns. Thereafter, an assessment order itself was passed on 19.08.1999 i.e. much after the inspection was conducted. It is this assessment order which was revised by the Revisional Authority i.e. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) vide order dated 16.08.2001. In the revisional order, the Revisional Authority insofar as the disclosure made on 21.07.1999 and the non-disclosure of purchase and sale of timber in the regular books of accounts and also non-disclosure of sales in the monthly A2 returns, considered it to be intentional and willful suppression of the purchase and sale of timber with a mala fide intention of evading tax. Therefore, the Revisional Authority assessed tax on the so-called disclosure of income and in addition also imposed penalty on the said amount. Subsequently, the order of Revisional Authority was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before the STAT. The STAT in turn had passed the impugned common order dismissing the tax appeals preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the instant Tax Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner.

6. The question of law raised by the petitioner in both these Tax Revision Cases is “whether the order passed by the Revisional Authority is to be considered one under Section 20 of the APGST Act or under Section 14(4) of the APGST Act?”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that immediately after the inspection was done and whatever was detected by the inspection squad, the petitioner addressed a letter on the same day accepting his mistake insofar as not reporting the actual turnover and not paying tax. However, the petitioner paid the difference of tax vide cheque No.307170, dated 16.08.1999, in favour of DCTO, Kamareddy, and accepting his guilt the petitioner also paid the compounding fees vide cheque No.307171, dated 21.07.1999. Therefore, both these transactions would very well go to establish that before the assessment was passed on 19.08.1999, which is much after the inspection, the petitioner had already accepted his guilt and had paid the differential tax and compounding fees.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this itself is good enough to establish that the