STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RANGISETTI VEERANNA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that falls for consideration and decision in this tax revision case is whether a particular direction issued by the Board of Revenue is a clarification given by it on a question referred to it within the meaning of section 14 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessment was made on 17th November, 1970. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in appeal by the assessee, set aside the assessment and remanded the matter by his order dated 18th July, 1972. After remand, the assessing authority made assessment on 16th May, 1973.

(2.) IT is now seen that this latter assessment was made six years, one month and fifteen days after the closure of the assessment year 1966-67 on 31st March, 1967. According to the requirements of law, this assessment must be completed within four years. However, the period taken for disposal of the appeal must be excluded. That is to say, the time, which elapsed between 17th November, 1970, and 18th July, 1972, which is the date of the appellate order, must be excluded, i. e. , only one year, eight months and one day. Even if that period is excluded, still, the period is over four years by five months and fourteen days. In order to get over this difficulty, the department relied on a reference to the Board of Revenue made by the Deputy Commissioner and the direction given by the Board on that representation on 17th January, 1970. The assessment is in regard to jaggery. This Court rendered a decision in Irri Veera Raju v. Commercial Tax Officer ([1967] 20 S. T. C. 501) dealing with section 11 of the Act. According to that decision, some reliefs were to be given to the dealers in jaggery. The A. P. Legislature was contemplating an amendment. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes addressed a communication to the Board of Revenue saying that the legislature was contemplating an amendment, but, if, in the meanwhile, all these assessments are completed, the aforesaid decision of the High Court will have to be followed under which reliefs will have to be given to all the dealers. He was afraid that he would be flooded with appeals by the department. After the legislature amended section 11 in the light of the High Court's decision, he felt incapable or unable to deal with so many appeals that might arise and, therefore, sough an opinion of the Board of Revenue. The Board then gave a direction, which reads :

(3.) THE Tribunal held that the order issued by the Board of Revenue on 17th January, 1970, and which it rescinded on 5th August, 1970, is not a clarification within the meaning of section 14 (6) of the Act and does not, therefore, save the limitation of this particular assessment. We are in complete accord with this view. What the Board of Revenue gave was only an administrative direction. No clarification was sought and, in fact, could be sought from the Board of Revenue. The legal position was settle by the decision of the High Court. All the relevant cases will have to be decided in the light of that decision. There was no ambiguity or difficulty felt by the assessing authority. It may be that the legislature was contemplating to amend the said section of the Act in the light of the High Court's decision. What all the Deputy Commissioner wanted was to stop disposal of all these cases until the State Legislature amended the Act. He requested the Revenue Board only to direct stopping of assessments in all such cases. By no stretch of imagination could it be said a clarification issued by the Board of Revenue on any question referred to it. It has no more status than an administrative instruction to stop consideration of all these cases until the legislature amended the material provisions. Therefore, agreeing with the conclusion of the Tribunal, we dismiss this tax revision case with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.