ELGITREAD (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Elgitread (India) Limited, Thumakunta (Hindupur), field this appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, dated 12.2.2001 in Spl. R. No. 9/2000 -01. According to the appellant, the revisional authority revised the Commercial Tax Officer's order dated. 19.2.1997, which is illegal and contrary to law, as this order was a consequential order passed in response to the directions given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, vide his order dated 23.3.1996. It is the contention of the appellant that since this is an order passed as per directions of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, another officer of the same rank i.e., Deputy Commissioner cannot revise the same again. It is the contention of the appellant that in the guise of revising the order dated 19.2.1997 the Deputy Commissioner has actually revised the original assessment order dated 14.3.1996, which he was barred from revising after expiry of 4 years from the assessment year, which is 1994 -95. In other words, the original assessment order could have been revised only upto 31.3.1999. Since, he was barred by limitation from doing so vide his order dated. 12.2.2001, the Deputy Commissioner in the guise of revising the order dated 19.2.1997 has actually taken up the issue which was not the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and on which no directions were given by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. They have appealed against the revision order on this point of law.

(2.) THE learned State Representative, has, however, supported the orders of the Deputy Commissioner saying that the revision does not touch the point decided by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and it is on purely different issue. We have examined the contention of both sides. It is seen that in the references cited by the Deputy Commissioner while passing his order dated. 12.2.2001, he has mentioned only the following: