MYSORE BREWERIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the manufacturer of beer and a dealer within the meaning of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). An order of assessment was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 20/04/1993. He preferred an appeal against that order of assessment before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Guntur. By order dated 6/05/1993, the appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the appellate authority. Purporting to exercise his power under section 20 read with rule 44-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules (for short "the Rules") the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the second respondent herein, issued show cause notice as to why the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Guntur, passed on 6/05/1993, should not be revised. This gave provocation to the petitioner for filing this writ petition prying this Court to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the rule 44-A of the Rules to the extend of making Appellate Deputy Commissioner acting under section 19 as subordinate to Joint Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the purpose of exercising revisional power under section 20 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(2.) Dr. Moorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power under section 20 read with rule 44-A cannot be so exercised so as to make the order of the judicial authority passed in appeal, ineffective. He further submits that rule 44-A is illegal. He elaborates his contention by submitting that in so far as the order of the appellate authority is concerned that cannot be stated on the anvil of "prejudicial to the interest of State revenue" so as to set aside that order. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes submits that the order passed by the appellate authority under section 19 is an order passed by the statutory quasi-judicial authority and is not a judicial order; the power under section 20 of the Act under which an authority named in the Rules is empowered, is a revisional jurisdiction so the contention is not correct.

(3.) In our view the submission made by Dr. Moorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Against the order of assessment an appeal is provided under section 19, to such authority as may be prescribed (here prescribed means prescribed under the Rules). The Appellate Deputy Commissioner is prescribed as the appellate authority under section 19. Section 20 which is relevant for our purpose reads as follows :