Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The short question that arises for consideration in this tax revision case, filed by the assessee, u/s 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, is whether the order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner on March 26, 1984 is beyond the period of limitation having regard to the provisions of section 20(3) of the Act.

The initial order of assessment was passed on October 19, 1979 which was served on the assessee on November 19, 1979. But, that order was modified by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) on February 19, 1980, which was served on March 29, 1980. The revising authority initiated the proceedings u/s 20(2) of the Act by notice dated March 3, 1984 and passed the order of revision on March 26, 1984. That order, it is stated, was served on April 18, 1984. The Tribunal held that the revision was not barred by limitation.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inasmuch as the order of the appellate authority dated February 19, 1980 was served on the assessee on March 29, 1980 and the order of the revising authority dated March 26, 1984 was served on April 18, 1984, it is clearly beyond four years, therefore, the order of the revising authority would be barred by limitation. We are afraid we cannot accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The purpose of section 20(3) of the Act in prescribing the limitation of four years is for exercising the revisionary jurisdiction which has been interpreted to mean initiation of the proceedings and passing a final order by the revising authority. In this view of the matter, the service of the order of the revising authority after March 29, 1984, on which date four years period comes to an end, but within a reasonable period from the date of passing of the order, will not be relevant. It is only when the order of revision was served with an abnormal delay and the delay is not explained, the presumption of the order not having been passed on the date it purports to have been passed, would arise. This is not such a case where such presumption can be raised. For all these reasons, we find no merit in the T.R.C., it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.