THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NARSI NG RAO NANDI KONDA TAX REVI SI ON CASE No.70 OF 2009

ORDER

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

The instant Tax Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner /

State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 22(1) read with Rule 10 of the APGST Rules under the APGST Act, challenging the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the ‘STAT’) in T.A.No.861 of 2002, decided on 19.11.2008.

2. Heard Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Tax A.P., appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the STAT has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. The Dy. Commissioner (CT) Charminar Division, Hyderabad dated 30.06.2001 in RR No.10/2008 RR No.260/2008, and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

4. The Revisional Authority took up the aforesaid revisional case after more than 8 years from the date the original order was passed by the APSTAT, Hyderabad, on 10.07.1990. The Revisional Authority took up the revision case on the ground that the order dated 10.07.1990 passed by the APSTAT remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority was received at its office on 24.12.1998, and the Revisional Authority thereafter passed an order reversing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle, Hyderabad granting exemption on Rs.1,17,19,736.13/-.

5. It was this order of the Revisional Authority which was subjected to challenge before the STAT. The STAT allowed the appeal by reversing the order passed by the Revisional Authority holding that the Revisional Authority has exercised its revisional powers at a much belated stage which could not have otherwise been done. Moreover, it was found that the order dated 30.06.2001 is also one which is prima facie an anti-dated order, as the order was served upon the assessee only on 05.03.2002 and no materials were made available to show that the order dated 30.06.2001 was promptly dispatched.

6. The contention of the learned Special Standing Counsel for the petitioner was whether the STAT was justified in reversing the order passed by the Revisional Authority on the ground of delay, when admittedly the order passed by the APSTAT was served upon the petitioner only on 24.12.1998.

7. However, upon due consideration of the contentions put forth by the learned Special Standing Counsel and on perusal of records, this Bench finds that there is no cogent material made available to show that in fact the original order passed by the APSTAT on 10.07.1990 was in fact not served upon the petitioner immediately after the order was passed. There was also no strong material to show that it was the original order dated 10.07.1990 which was served upon the petitioner on 24.12.1998. Perusal of the records would also show that the order upon which the Revisional Authority has exercised its powers, initiating revisional proceedings in fact is from a Xerox copy which the authority obtained from APSTAT. The authorities are silent as to receiving original order dated 10.07.1990. There is also no explanation given by the learned Special Standing Counsel so far as the order of the Revisional Authority dated 30.06.2001 also not being immediately dispatched and served upon the Department on 05.03.2002 which fact was also taken note of by the STAT seriously and, the STAT has held that the order seems to be an anti-dated order.

8. Having gone through the contents of the impugned order, we do not find any substantial error on law or on facts to have been committed by the STAT while allowing the appeal of the assessee. All the contentions raised by the learned Special Standing Counsel have been duly considered by STAT while passing the impugned order, and as such, we do not find any substantial question of law made out in the present factual matrix of the case calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by STAT. The instant a