THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA TAX REVI SI ON CASE Nos.207 AND 208 of 2008

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

Heard Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttamreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax for the respondent.

2. Since the issue involved and the petitioner / assessee in these two Tax Revision Cases being one and the same, they being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

3. These two Tax Revision Case are filed by the petitioner under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the ‘AGPST Act’) challenging the common order dated 17.05.2008, in T.A.Nos.1448 and 1449 of 2001, passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the ‘STAT’).

4. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Government undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of APGST Act and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively. The petitioner's assessment for the years 1986-87 and

1987-1988 was completed by the Assessing Authority by its order dated 26.02.1991 and 23.08.1992 respectively levying tax on 70% of receipts as taxable instead of arriving at actual value of goods transferred in execution of works contract and the exemptions under Rule 6 (2) based on books have been overlooked. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad and the same were dismissed by order dated 29.10.1993. However, when the petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner before the STAT, the STAT by its order dated 17.02.1995, in T.A.Nos.51 of 1994 and batch, had set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh consideration after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. But the Commercial Tax Officer has once again confirmed the levy vide order dated 12.03.1998. The Commercial Tax Officer has, however, given exemption in respect of cement, steel supply and cost recovery basis to the petitioner and incorporated in the works in respect of 1986-87 only. Further, the levy of tax is on 70% of receipts instead of giving deduction at actual towards labour and levying tax on balance turnover of the goods.

5. It was contended by the petitioner that he could not participate in the assessment as its staff were scattered at different places and sought time to furnish necessary details as per the direction of STAT. It is also contended that the Commercial Tax Officer passed an order on the ground that limitation was going to expire by 13.03.1998. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated 13.03.2001 rejecting the contentions of the petitioner that the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was time barred and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Challenging the same, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the STAT on the ground that the revised assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer is barred by time under Section 24A of the APGST Act and also on the ground that the petitioner was not provided sufficient opportunity before passing the assessment order. But, the learned STAT, however, rejected the appeal on both the grounds by its order dated 17.05.2008

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the orders of the STAT in earlier round of appeals were served on the State Representative on 25.06.1995, the Commercial Tax Officer ought to have passed the consequential orders in terms of Section 24A of the APGST Act within three years from the date of service of order on the State Representative i.e., before 25.06.1998. It was also contended that the orders passed