SANTHOSH BUILDERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the revisional orders dated August 31, 2006, passed by the first respondent in proceedings bearing R.V. No. 239/04-05/A6 and the consequent order passed by the second respondent bearing GI No. 12537/2001-2 dated November 7, 2006, seeking recovery of tax of Rs. 2,76,068 and attaching the bills pending with the third and fourth respondents. The petitioner is a firm in the business of securing and executing P.W.D., R and B and other contract works and in executing works on sub-contracting basis. The firm was incorporated in 1994 and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent. On the death of the husband of the deponent on April 18, 2002, the firm was dissolved and a new firm was reconstituted on October 28, 2003, a fact informed to the second respondent vide letter dated May 28, 2005, asserted to have been acknowledged by the second respondent; a fact not disputed in the counter-affidavit. On October 30, 2002, the assessment of tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the years 2001-02 was made by the second respondent granting the benefit of exemption from levy of tax on a turnover of Rs. 1,26,00,876.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that beyond four years from the order of assessment dated October 30, 2002, the first respondent invoked the power conferred under section 20(2) of the Act and issued a fresh show-cause notice dated February 21, 2006, proposing to deny the benefit of exemption allowed by the second respondent on the turnover of Rs. 1,26,00,876. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated August 31, 2006 was never communicated to it. When it was making enquiry with the third and fourth respondents the arrears due to the firm, the petitioner was informed that the second respondent issued proceedings for attaching the pending bills due to the firm under sections 16C and 17 of the APGST Act and section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and that these proceedings for attachment were pursuant to the order dated August 31, 2006 passed by the first respondent, exercising the power of revision under section 20(2) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner assails the order purportedly passed by the first respondent on August 31, 2006 and never communicated to it on the ground that the said order is barred by the limitation period prescribed under section 20(3) of the Act, which enjoins that the power of assessment shall be exercised within a period of four years from the date on which the order of assessment is served on the dealer. As the primary order of assessment was passed on October 30, 2002 and served on the petitioner on November 5, 2002, the revisional order could be passed exercising power under section 20(2) of the Act only within four years from November 5, 2002, i.e., by November 4, 2006, is the contention.