AKULURU VENKATA SUBRAMANYAM Vs. SPECIAL COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICEREVASIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Vijayawada, in Assessment No. 6416/61-62, dated 4th June, 1964, under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer in paddy and rice. For the year 1961-62 he was assessed to sales tax by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudur, on a net turnover of Rs. 2,780.00, but subsequently the Special Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Vijayawada, on a scrutiny of the petitioner's books of accounts revised the assessment and levied an additional tax on the basis of an additional turnover of Rs. 38,920.00. Against the said order dated 4th June, 1964, which was stated to have been received by the petitioner on 26th August, 1964, he preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Guntur, on 27th January, 1965, which was received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner on 1st February, 1965. As the appeal was filed out of time, the petitioner filed an application to condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal on the ground of illness etc., and also filed a petition for stay of collection of the tax. But the appellate authority refused to condone the delay and hence rejected the appeal and consequently dismissed the petition for stay of collection of tax. Against the said order of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 17th March, 1965. The petitioner filed an independent application before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for stay of collection of the tax as he was the only authority having power to grant stay, pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission the learned counsel amended his petition challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Relying upon a judgment of Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., in W.P. Nos. 580 and 581 of 1964 dated 16th April, 1964 - Kavukoti Ekanadham v. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Since reported at page 242 supra.) - the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Dasaratharama Reddy, contended that the order of the Tribunal rejecting his appeal for his failure to pay the tax is erroneous inasmuch as the tax has not been determined by the appellate authority under section 19 as required by section 21(6) of the Act. We may now refer to section 21(6) which reads as follows :