2026:APHC:30704 APHC010378052009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3529]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD 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 Nos.: 131 & 186/2009 TAX REVISION CASE NO: 131/2009 Between:

1. T HE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, REP BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE STAT O/O.MEGHANA TOWERS, 4TH FLOOR, OPP.GURUDWARA BUS STOP, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER AND

1. M /S BATCHALA BALAIAH AND COMPANY, D.No.58-9-21, Sontapet, Ongole, Prakasam District ...RESPONDENT take the TRC on file and set aside the orders of the Hon'ble STAT., AP., Hyderabad in TA No.445/2007 dated 26.02.2009 Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent:

1. S R R VISWANATH The Court made the following Common Order:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

As the parties to these two Revision Cases are one and the same, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.

2. The respondent dealer was involved in a works contract and had disclosed its turn-over for the years 1998-99 & 2000-01. The Commercial Tax Officer No.II, after verifying the returns, had passed orders of assessment, dated 16.05.2002 and 30.03.2002 for the assessment years 1998-99 and 2000-01 respectively. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore Division, took up the revision of the said orders and passed separate orders of revision, dated 12.06.2006. Aggrieved by the said orders of revision, the respondent dealer approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by way of T.A.Nos.443 &

445 of 2007.

3. Two issues were raised before the Tribunal. Firstly, on the ground of jurisdiction and secondly, on the merits of the revisional order.

4. Under the first ground, the contention raised by the respondent dealer was that the revisional authority, exercising power under Section 20 of the AP General Sales Tax Act, 1957, can exercise such power only if the revisional authority is satisfied that the order under revision is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was contended before the Tribunal that no such satisfaction has been recorded in the orders of revision and consequently, the said orders are without jurisdiction. Secondly, the respondent dealer contended that the revisional authority had not complied with rule 6 (3) (ii) inasmuch as the case of the respondent dealer would have taken up under Rule 6 (ii) of the GST Rules. The Tribunal, while commenting on the merits of the case, had observed that while it would not have agreed with the findings, on the merits of the case, the impugned orders were being set aside on the ground of jurisdiction.

5. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal, in allowing the appeals, filed by the respondent dealer on 12.03.2009, the State has filed the present Revision.

6. A perusal of the orders of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal had allowed the appeals on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the orders of the revisional Deputy Commissioner did not record any satisfaction of the revisional Deputy Commissioner that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer were prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal, after recording this fact and relying upon Judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases-

i) Media Communications vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh ii) Harshad Chimanlal Modi vs. DLF Universal Limited and another

1 105 STC 227

iii) Dwaraka Prasad Agarwal (D) by Lrs vs. BD Agarwal iv) Second Ashok Leyland Case v) Konijetti Malliah and Co., Hyderabad vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had held that the Revisional Deputy Commissioner had not given any findings on the necessary jurisdictional fact for exercising his power under Section 20 and set aside the said orders.

7. Section 20 of the AP GST Act reads as follows:

20. Revision by (Commissioner of Com