SAIPEM Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Visakhapatnam, the present writ petitions are filed. As per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is a Portugal company having its project office at Mumbai and is a dealer registered under the Provisions of Indian Companies Act and is a registered dealer under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957 as well as C.S.T. Act, 1956 and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner is engaged in the business of drilling, testing and abandoning of off shore wells. The petitioner was assessed by an order dated 20.06.2007 on a turnover of Rs. 56,56,33,774/- towards transfer of right to use goods and Rs. 1,39,72,848/- towards transfer of property in goods during the execution of works contract. Petitioner filed appeals before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by order dated 26.2.2008 partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter in part to the 1st respondent. In the said order, the contention with regard to turnover of Rs. 56,56,33,774/- representing any transfer of right to use goods was rejected but the said turnover was exempted from tax on the alternative ground of same filing within Section 5(2) of the C.S.T. Act as sale in the course of import. So far as turnover of Rs. 1,39,72,848/- is concerned, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the 1st respondent with the following observations:--

(2.) Though the 2nd respondent passed order remanding the matter to the 1st respondent by his order dated 26.2.2008, the petitioner thereafter received no notice whatsoever from the 1st respondent and no orders as such were passed thereafter. As a matter of fact, under Section 24A of A.P.G.S.T. Act, the 1st respondent could pass orders consequent to the remand orders of the 2nd respondent dated 26.2.2008 within three years from the date of receipt of the order of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Petitioner received a notice dated 16.10.2008 from the 3rd respondent whereunder 3rd respondent proposed to revise the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26.2.2008 with respect to turnover of Rs. 56,56,33,774/- which was treated as a transaction under Section 5(2) of the C.S.T. Act. In the said notice, there was no proposal to revise the orders of the 2nd respondent so far as the turnover of Rs. 1,39,72,848/- which was remanded to the 1st respondent with directions as set out in the preceding paragraphs. By order dated 25.2.2012 the 3rd respondent reversed the decision of the 2nd respondent with respect to turnover of Rs. 56,56,33,774/- only and there was no mention about the turnover of Rs. 1,39,72,848/-. As against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 25.2.2012, an appeal is filed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication.