APHC010542992008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3529]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR TAX REVISION CASE NO: 184/2008 Between:

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT D.NO. 50-50-30/12 (2)

MEGHANA TOWERS, OPP: GURUDWARE BUS STOP, ...PETITIONER AND

1. M/S A B C ENGINEERING WORKS, Vijayawada.

...RESPONDENT to take the TRC on file and set aside the order of the Honble STAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in TA.No. 4/2007 dated 14.12.2007 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent:

1. G NARENDRA CHETTY The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

The assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Autonagar circle, Vijayawada by way of an assessment order dated 29.03.2004. Subsequently, there was a reassessment conducted by the Commercial Tax officer, who passed an order of reassessment dated 21.02.2005 under Section 14 (4) of A.P.GST Act.

2. Aggrieved by the said order of re-assessment, the respondent had approached the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Vijayawada, by order dated 27.06.2005, had partly allowed and partly remanded the Appeal. This order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) is subjected to the revision by the Joint commissioner of Commercial Tax (Legal), who passed an order of revision on 11.05.2006. The said order of revision was the subject matter of an appeal, bearing T.A.No.04 of 2007 before the Sales Tax Appellant Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. This Tax Appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, on 14.12.2007, both on merits as well as on the ground that the order of reassessment dated 21.02.2005 was itself without jurisdiction and that the said order could not have been restored by the Joint Commissioner, in his order of revision.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, STAT has filed the present Revision.

4. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has given a finding of fact that the order of reassessment, was not on the basis of any fresh material and that both the initial assessment order as well as reassessment were passed on the same material.

5. The contours of reassessment, under Section 14 (4) of A.P.GST Act was subject matter of consideration, in the case of Giridharilal and Company Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Vol 97STC442(AP). A Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh following the earlier judgments had taken the view that the order of reassessment proceedings under Section 14 (4) of A.P.GST Act would be permissible only if fresh material, which was not available at the time of the passing of the original order of assessment, had come to the knowledge of the assessing officer and that such fresh material it demonstrate that the original order of assessment requires to be modified.

6. In the present case, the finding of fact, given by the Tribunal is that no such fresh material was available for the assessing authority to have passed an order of reassessment.

7. Following the said judgment, it must be held that the order of reassessment passed in present case is without jurisdiction and not in conformity with section 14 (4) of A.P.GST Act.

8. Consequently, the order of revision, restoring the order of reassessment was not permissible.

9. Accordingly, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J SSA

09.02.2026