(1.) TWO short points that arise for adjudication in this appeal are these:
(2.) M /s. Shiv Steel Industries, Patancheru (for short, 'the appellants') did business as manufacturers and sellers of Iron angles, bars etc. They were finally assessed to tax under APGST Act (for short, 'the Act') by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sangareddy (for short, 'the assessing authority') by order dated 15 -03 -1997 for the assessment year 1994 -95. During the course of audit conducted by the Accountant General, Hyderabad it was pointed out that an excess set off of Rs. 54,085/ - towards purchase value of MS Scrap was wrongly granted by the assessing authority purportedly under G.O.Ms. No. 763, dated 21 -08 -1990. Pursuant to that, the assessing authority reassessed the appellants under Section 14(4) of the Act by order dated 29 -10 -1997. Aggrieved by the said reassessment order, the appellants carried up in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Secunderabad Division (for short, 'the appellate authority') challenging the reassessment based on audit objection as contrary to the decision of their Lordships of A.P. High Court in the case between State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ratna Sree Box Makers : (1989) reported in 75 STC p. 82 wherein it was held that the opinion of the audit party cannot be treated as material dehors the assessment record to enable reopening of an assessment under Section 14(4) of the Act. Following the said decision, the appellate authority allowed the appeal by order dated 16 -12 -1997 setting aside the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority. Whilst so, the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad (for short, 'the revisional authority') in exercise of power under Section 20(2) by order dated 28 -02 -2001 set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority. The reasoning recorded by the revisional authority is that the Apex Court in the case between State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ratna Sree Box Makers, (1999) reported in 29 APSTJ p. 221 reversed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court cited supra.
(3.) HEARD both sides.