THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TREVC.No.300 of 2009 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)

This Tax Revision Case is filed assailing the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the STAT’) in TA.No.1196/2004, dt.02.06.2009. The assessment year involved is 1998-99 under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957(for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for the petitioner/Revenue and Sri Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent/assessee.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent/assessee namely M/s Rayalseema, Concrete Sleepers(P) Ltd., registered on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Maharajgunj Circle, Hyderabad, is dealing in Concrete Sleepers; that subsequently, the Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar Division (for short ‘Assessing Authority’) passed final assessment order, dt.24.04.2000, for the assessment year 1998-99 under the Act; that the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad (for short ‘Revisional Authority’), in exercise of power under Section 14(4)(8) of the Act, proposed to revise the said assessment order on the ground that the assessee failed to disclose turnovers relating to sand and metal amounting to Rs.39,74,891/- and Rs.11,46,618/-, and issued a pre-revision cause notice, to which respondent/assessee submitted objections by letter dt.27.11.2000, and thereafter the revisional authority vide order dt.23.07.2003, revised the orders of the Assessing Authority, concluding that the respondent/assessee has not included the turnovers of sand and metal.

4. The said revisional order was challenged by the respondent/assessee before the learned STAT in TA.No.1196/2004 on two grounds: i) that the Revisional Authority has not mentioned in the revision show-cause notice as under revision, the amounts of Rs.39,74,891/-and Rs.11,46,688/-, respectively, in respect of suppression of metal and sand; and ii) the revisional authority has not supplied the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer to the respondent/assessee so as to substantiate their defence before the said authority at the time of hearing, in spite of repeated requests and objections.

5. The assessee contended before the learned STAT that the turnover pertaining to sand and metal was not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice so as to substantiate their case , and non-mention of the same amounts to procedural lapse, which will potentially prejudice to the defence and impact the fairness of the proceedings.

6. It was further argued by the assessee that failure of the revisional authority to furnish a copy of the report of the Regional Vigilance & Enforcement Officer, despite a specific request, violated the principles of natural justice, as the right to a fair hearing includes access to all material evidence relied upon by authority. On these grounds, it was urged by the assessee that the revision proceedings were vitiated and the impugned revisionary order deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned STAT by placing reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Loharu Steel Industries Limited1 and M/s Rayalaseema Paper Mills, Adhoni v. Dy. Commissioner(CT), Kurnool, (1992) 15 APSTJ 70 held that the revision show-cause notice does not disclose the specific details of the turnovers of sand and metal, enabling the respondent/assessee to substantiate their defence and also non-supply of the report of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer to the respondent/assessee, despite a specific request to furnish the same, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, and these procedural lapses rendered the revisional proceedings unsustainable, and thereby declared the proceedings, dt.23.07.2003 in RR.No.24/2001-02 R.No.598/2001 as unsustainable and accordingly, set aside the same by allowing the appeal.

8. As