The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Pitchi Reddy
- SCC(2022) 2 SCC 569
- Neutral2022 INSC 2
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. The High Court ought not to have entertained writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge fresh assessment orders made by an Assessing Officer following remand by the First Appellate Authority, when the aggrieved assessees had an alternative remedy available to them in the form of an appeal before the First Appellate Authority—the same remedy which they had availed in relation to the original assessment orders. 2. The mere pendency of suo moto revisional proceedings by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against an order remanding a case by the First Appellate Authority does not prevent the Assessing Officer from proceeding with a fresh assessment consequent to that remand order, and therefore the freshly passed assessment orders cannot be set aside on that ground alone. 3. An aggrieved assessee whose fresh assessment order is adverse to its interests cannot be excused from pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal before the First Appellate Authority by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[NON-REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
Civil Appeal No. 7768 OF 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. .. Appellants
Versus
S. Pitchi Reddy .. Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No.7771 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
B. Rama Koteswara Rao ..Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No.7770 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.01.03 Versus 17:12:37 IST Reason:
S. Pitchi Reddy ..Respondent 2
With
Civil Appeal No.7769 of 2021
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
S. Pitchi Reddy ..Respondent
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment
and Orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh dated
13.11.2017 in Writ Petition No.37515 of 2017; Writ Petition No.37516
of 2017; Writ Petition No.37504 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.37498 of
2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions
preferred by the respondents herein – original assessees and has
quashed the respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing
Officer – Commercial Tax Officer, Brodipet Circle, Guntur, the State of
Andhra Pradesh and others have preferred the present appeals. 3
2. That the respective respondents are the registered dealers
holding VAT Registration. The Assessing Officer passed the
assessment orders for the respective assessment years and
assessed the tax by order dated 25.07.2012. The particulars in a
tabular form are as under:
Civil Appeal No. Assessment Year Assessed Tax Date of Order Civil Appeal 2010-2011 9,10,608/- 25.07.2012 No.7768 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2008-2009 7,07,031/- 25.07.2012 No.7771 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2009-2010 10,73,119/- 25.07.2012 No.7770 of 2021
Civil Appeal 2008-2009 10,25,321/- 25.07.2012 No.7669-2021
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective
Assessment Orders, the dealers/assesses preferred the appeals
before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur. The First
Appellate Authority remanded the case to the Assessing Officer.
Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised suo
moto revisional powers vide its proceedings dated 27.07.2014
against the order by the First Appellate Authority remanding the 4
matter to the AO. The respective dealers submitted their objections.
Pending the revisional proceedings before the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notices
for making fresh assessment orders consequent to the remand of the
cases by the First Appellate Authority. The respective dealers
submitted their objections, inter alia, to the effect that when the suo
moto revisions are pending before the Commissioner, the Assessing
officer has no jurisdiction to make a fresh assessment in pursuance
of the remand order. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed fresh
assessment orders consequent upon the remand of the case by the
First Appellate Authority. Instead of preferring an appeal/appeals
before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment
orders, the dealers straight way filed writ petitions before the High
Court and by impugned judgment and orders, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the fresh assessment
orders, solely on the ground that pending suo moto revisional
proceedings, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded
further with the fresh assessment.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and orders passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the 5
fresh assessment orders, the State has preferred the present
appeals. As per the Office Report, though served, nobody appears
on behalf of the respondent(s). Therefore, the hearing is proceeded
ex-parte.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the State and
considering the impugned judgment and orders passed by the High
Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and orders
passed by the High Court, quashing and setting aside the fresh
assessment orders are unsustainable.
5.1 Firstly, the High Court ought not to have directly entertained the
writ petitions challenging the fresh assessment orders. The
respective dealers – assessees ought to have availed the alternative
remedy of appeals before the First Appellate Authority which were
availed earlier when the earlier assessment orders were passed.
5.2 Secondly, because the fresh assessment orders were passed
consequent upon the remand of the case by the First Appellate
Authority pending the revisional proceedings against the order of
remand, merely on that ground alone the fresh assessment orders
could not have been set aside.
6
5.3 Nothing has been observed by the High Court on the merits of
the fresh assessment orders. If the fresh assessment orders would
have gone against the State, in that case the State would have been
the aggrieved party and the State could have raised the objection that
pending suo moto revisional proceedings against the order of
remand, the Assessing Officer ought not to have proceeded further
with the fresh assessments. However, in the present case the fresh
assessments have gone against the respective dealers. Therefore,
as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the appeals
before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment
orders.
5.4 In view of the above, the judgment and orders passed by the
High Court quashing and setting aside the fresh assessment orders
in the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are
unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
appeals succeed. The judgment and orders passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition No.37515 of 2017; Writ Petition No.37516 of
2017; Writ Petition No.37504 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.37498 of 7
2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, January 3, 2022
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free