IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.10344, 10354, 10357 & 10364 of 2009 Between: M/s.Dilshad Data Forms Limited, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad And 3 others .....RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.10344, 10354, 10357 & 10364 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. These four writ petitions are directed against separate endorsements, all dated 19.03.2009 made by the 1st respondent declining the petitioner plea for revision of assessments; as on the ground provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”) or Rule-50(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short “the Rules”), does not enable such revision. 03. The same petitioner has filed these writ petitions, relating to the assessment orders pertaining to different years. The petitioner is a manufacturer of computer stationery having its factory in Hyderabad and is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was granted sales tax exemption under G.O.Ms.No.108, Industries & Commerce (IP) Department dated 20.05.1996 for Rs.34,31,430/-, to be availed for a period of 7 years i.e., from 23.07.1998 to 22.07.2005. After the petitioner undertook expansion of the unit, he was accorded Final Eligibility Certificate on 16.09.2005 for sale tax exemption of Rs.48,44,500/-, again for a period of 7 years, i.e. from 03.09.2000 to 02.09.2007. 4. The facts and the legal position arising from W.P.10344/2009 is illustrative of all the writ petitions. The facts of this writ petition are; (a) The assessment of the petitioner’s business for 2011-02 was completed by the 1st respondent by 07.10.2003 and the gross turnover of Rs.1,45,71,090/- was assessed to tax @8%. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent had subjected computer stationery manufactured and sold by the petitioner to tax @ 8% bringing it under Entry-19 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act which reads “all kinds of paper”; and rejected the claim as to the rate of tax @ 4%. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 3rd respondent was inter alia as regards this claim; (b). The 3rd respondent by an order dated 16.02.2004 partly allowed and partly remanded the case, holding that the computer stationery falls under Entry-38A of the First Schedule to the Act, exigible tax at 4%. (c). The 2nd respondent, exercising revisional powers under Sec.20(2) of the Act, revised the appellate order by order dated 22.01.2008 and subjected the sales turnover of computer stationary under item-19 of the Sixth Schedule, concurring with the assessment order. Consequently, the 1st respondent gave effect to the revisional order passed by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 29.01.2008 and forwarded a demand of Rs.5,02,843/- (d). Against the revisional order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal along with an application for stay of collection of the disputed tax. The appeal and the interlocutory application are stated to be pending. (e). The petitioner assessment for the subsequent year 2004-05 was completed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent based on the revisional order pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02, revised the assessment year 2004-05 as well, under Sec.14(4) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order to the 3rd respondent which is stated to be pending; (f). On noticing that the 1st respondent failed to grant set off of tax, in terms of the second Proviso to Sixth Schedule to the Act (since the product dealt by the petitioner was treated as falling under Entry 19 of the Sixth Schedule), the petitioner represented to the 1st respondent to revise its orders and adjust the arrears of tax as against the unavailed sales tax exemption. In response, the 1st respondent by order dated 16.02.2009 reduced the tax amount payable from Rs.2,70,459 to Rs.2,33,119 adjusting the component of sales tax against the unavailed credit of sales tax exemption, but failed to give set off of tax in terms of the second Proviso to the Sixth Schedule. The petitioner therefore again represented to the 1st respondent seeking grant of set off of tax under the second Proviso to the Sixth Schedule, by exercise of powers of revision under Sec.14(4) of the Act read with Rule-50(1) of the Rules. By the impugned endorsement, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner’s application for revision. 5. Sec.14 of the Act enumerates provisions for assessment of tax. Sub-sec.(4), on which substantial reliance is placed by the petitioner for impeaching the impugned endorsement reads: “Sec.14(4) In any of the following events, namely, where the whole or any part of the turnover of a business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax, or has been under-assessed or assessed at a rate lower than the correct rate, or where the licence fee or registration fee has escaped levy or has been levied at a rate lower than the correct rate, the assessing authority may, after issuing a notice to the dealer, and after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, by order, setting out the grounds therefore- (a) determined to the best of his judgment the turnover that has escaped assessment and assess the turnover so determined. (b) Assess the correct amount of tax payable on the turnover that has been under-assessed; (c) Assess at the correct rate the turnover that has been assessed at a lower rate; [(cc) assess the correct amount of tax payable, in a case where any deduction or exemption has been wrongly allowed;] (d) Levy the licence fee after determining to the best of his judgment the turnover on which such fee is payable. (e) Levy the registration fee that has escaped levy; (f) Levy the correct amount of licence fee or registration fee in a case where such fee has been levied at a rate lower than the correct fee. In addition to the tax assessed or fee levied under this sub-section, the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay a penalty as specified in sub-section(8)” Reliance is also placed on Rule-50(1) of the Rules, which reads; Rule-50 (1) Any assessing, appellate or revising authority may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent form the record; Provided that no such rectification which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or any penalty or fee shall be made unless the assessing, appellate or revising authority has given notice to the dealer (on his intention to do so and has allowed him reasonable opportunity of being heard). 6. It is axiomatic that a power of review must be conferred by legislation. Under Sec.14(4) no power of review is available to the authority passing an order of assessment unless the conditions of Sub- Sec.(4) are satisfied; which all pertain to escapement of the whole or any part of the turnover of a business of a dealer to assessment to tax; under assessment; assessment at a rate lower than the correct rate; escapement of licence fee levy or levy at a rate lower than the correct rate; i.e. circumstances where there is a prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. Rule-50 of the Rules confers a limited power of review of an order of assessment, either for clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record and not for incorrect application of the rate of tax; i.e. error after a due application of mind. 7. On the aforesaid view of the matter, neither Sec.14(4) of the Act nor Rule-50(1) of the Rules would avail to confer jurisdiction on the 1st respondent to re-visit or review orders of assessment initially passed or consequential orders passed on review by the 2nd respondent, on any of the pleas urged by the petitioner for invoking such power of review. On this analysis, the writ petitions are devoid of merit, invite rejection and are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ____________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J Dated:12.09.2011 Dsr