THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21449 OF 2010 21.09.2010 Between: M/s.Arora Enterprises …Petitioner AND Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Abids Division, Hyderabad, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.21449 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner assails the revisional proceedings dated 07.07.2008 under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act, for brevity) as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to provisions of the Act. The fact of the matter which is not disputed, in brief, is as follows. The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of second respondent. For the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner returned gross and net turnover of Rs.2,11,45,852/- representing first sale of alleged sports goods. An amount of Rs.21,61,357/- was paid as tax. The turnover assessed to tax also includes Rs.31,53,116/- from 01.04.2004 to 26.05.2004 subjected to tax at 8%. The assessment was completed on 05.01.2007. The first respondent issued show cause notice dated 10.06.2008 proposing to revise the assessment. In the show cause notice, it was stated that the petitioner was a dealer in fitness equipment; such goods are not covered in any of the entries in Schedules I to VI; and are covered under the residuary entry in Schedule VII to the Act. The order of the second respondent in levying tax at 8% under Entry 90-A of Schedule I was faulted and it was proposed to levy tax at 12% on the same. The petitioner submitted explanation on 30.06.2008 inter alia contending that the second respondent levied tax at 8% and 12% in 2004-2005 based on two circulars of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being Ref.No.A1(1)/628/04, dated 27.05.2004 and Circular Ref.No.A.1(1)/628/04, dated 06.10.2004, and requested to drop the proposed revision. The objection was rejected by the first respondent recording a finding that the two circulars bar a revision only in respect of assessments which were completed by 27.05.2004 under the first circular, and by 06.10.2004 under the second circular and that, as assessment was completed on 05.01.2007 in the petitioner’s case, they are not applicable. The proposed revision was confirmed and the entire turnover was taxed at 12%. The second respondent was directed to give effect to the said revisional assessment order. The petitioner statedly submitted a letter to the second respondent pointing out the incorrect calculation of the tax contending that the assessment was contrary to the formula contained in Rule 6(1) (l) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (the Rules, for brevity), in vain. Therefore, the petitioner made an application, purportedly under Rule 50 of the Rules, seeking rectification of the alleged mistake. By endorsement, being RR No.15/2008-2009, dated 29.12.2009, the first respondent rejected the application holding that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT, for brevity) before 20.09.2008 and that there are no arithmetical mistakes in the revisional orders. The petitioner preferred an appeal assailing the same before the STAT, which rejected the same on 08.02.2010. The petitioner then assailed the rejection order of the STAT, as well as the endorsement given by first respondent rejecting the application under Rule 50 of the Rules, in W.P.No.10717 of 2010 which was dismissed on 30.07.2010 leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies that are available in law. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. Counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions which are raised in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. The second respondent passed the assessment order on 05.01.2007. The petitioner allowed it to become final. Long time thereafter he made an application for rectification inter alia contending that calculation of the tax payable is not in accordance with Rule 6(1)(l) of the Rules. The first respondent rejected the application. The petitioner’s writ petition against the same was dismissed. From this it becomes clear that the exercise of jurisdiction by the first respondent, under Rule 50 of the Rules, was found to be valid and the matter must rest there. This writ petition is filed only on the ground that the revisional authority had failed to comply with Rule 6(1)(l) of the Rules. We are afraid such a plea is not available to the petitioner especially when the representation filed earlier was dismissed in respect of the same assessment year. This Court has already left it open to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law. Merely because the period of limitation, for filing the appeal has expired, the same cannot be a ground to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 21.09.2010. Pln