(1.) The question of law to be decided in this tax revision case is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in allowing the appeal. It is unfortunate that the question is not framed with any specificity.
(2.) The facts are in a narrow compass. The Commercial Tax Officer, Narasaraopet, by his assessment order dated 14/03/1983, assessed the turnover of the assessee. Long afterwards, i.e., more than 3 years after the assessment order was made, another Commercial Tax Officer at Narasaraopet issued a show cause notice dated 19/03/1986, to the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner suppressed certain turnover which was added and assessed under the said assessment order dated 14/03/1983, and thereafter by his order dated 31/03/1986, imposed a penalty of Rs. 33,584 at five times the tax due on the suppressed turnover of Rs. 1,94,551. On appeal by the petitioner, the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Guntur, reduced the penalty to three times. On further appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, following the decision of this Court in Nagabandi Mallaiah v. State of A.P. [1988] 70 STC 160, set aside the levy of penalty on the ground that firstly, penalty proceedings were not initiated by the very same assessing authority and secondly, that penalty proceedings were not initiated simultaneously by the very same assessing authority.
(3.) We find that the decision in Nagabandi Mallaiah's case [1988] 70 STC 160 (AP), fully answers the question raised in this tax revision case in favour of the petitioner. This Court held :