State of Andhra Pradesh vs Lamina Suspension Products Pvt. Ltd.

Venkatarama Reddi, J.—The Tribunal quashed the revisional order of the Joint Commissioner, C.T. (Legal) on the ground that on active application of mind to the facts of the case, the said authority decided not to initiate revision and in fact communicated the said decision to the assessing officer. The competent authority having thus felt that it is not a fit case for revision and also communicated the decision to the assessing officer, cannot initiate revision proceedings once again on a change of opinion. The mere fact that notice was not issued to the assessee in the earlier proceeding is immaterial inasmuch as it is a case of suo motu revision and when the revisional authority came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for initiating revision, the question of issuing notice to the assesee does not, in the very nature of things, arise. The decision not to initiate revision proceedings has not merely remained on the note file. It was even communicated to the assessing authority. The question of exercise of suo motu power of revision u/s 20 having thus been considered and a conscious decision was arrived at, the same authority cannot invoke that power once again to initiate revision proceedings contrary to the decision reached by him earlier. The decision of this Court in Kanakadurga Binny Rice Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999 112 STC 77 ; (1998) 27 APSTJ 61 has no application for the reason that it is clear from what is extracted at page 84 of STC ; 69 of APSTJ that there was nothing to suggest that the revisional authority took any decision on a review of the case. Moreover, there was no communication to the assessing authority communicating the decision dropping the proposed revision and accepting the order of the appellate authority. We do not, therefore, see any legal error in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

The T.R.C. is dismissed. No costs.