STATE OF A.P. Vs. MAYURI FILM DISTRIBUTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The T. Rev. C.M.P. is filed purportedly under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in fact, it ought to have been filed under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957) ("the Act") seeking condonation of delay of 383 days in filing the tax revision case. The application is accompanied by an affidavit deposed by the Deputy Commissioner and State Representative on June 27, 2011. As it is vague and does not give even the barest details as to sufficient cause, we permitted the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes to file better affidavit. A better affidavit, being USR No. 561 of 2011, is filed before us. It is stated therein that the certified copy of the order dated December 1, 2009 in T. A. No. 142 of 2005 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) was received on February 3, 2010, and that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CCT) constituted Tax Revision Cases Committee (TRC Committee) to examine the orders of the STAT with a view to decide whether to file a tax revision case or not. Accordingly, from out of the orders received in the month of February 2010, the State Representative put up 86 cases before the TRC Committee and submitted notes in all these cases for the committee's recommendations. The committee offered its opinion in respect of 35 cases, and the same were circulated to the Commissioner who accorded his approval on September 23, 2010 and after obtaining the approval the present case is filed on June 21, 2011.

(2.) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent. It is stated therein that the delay in the T. Rev. C.M.P. is mentioned as 383 days, but the actual delay is much more than that because the Department calculated the delay relying on rule 39 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, ignoring the limitation prescribed under section 22 of the Act. As per section 22 of the Act, the tax revision case has to be filed within 90 days from the date of service of the order of the STAT. And the actual delay in this case is 408 days and not 383 days, and the reasons for the delay are also inadequate, improper and vague.

(3.) We have heard the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes. As directed by us, he has placed before us the proceedings dated December 2, 1997 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CCT). The CCT issued the said proceedings to streamline the procedure for filing the revisions under section 22(1) of the Act. The same reads as below: