THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.10086, 10087, 10088 AND 10095 OF 2011 AND T.REV.C.Nos.6, 7, 9 AND18 OF 2011 Dated:25.04.2011 Between: M/s.k.Balanarasimha Reddy, Special Class Contractor, Door No.2-1-677, Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.K.Balanarasimha Reddy .. Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.10086, 10087, 10088 AND 10095 OF 2011 AND T.REV.C.Nos.6, 7, 9 AND 18 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) These four Writ Petitions and four Tax Revision Cases are preferred against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT), and the order passed by the assessing authority consequent upon the matter being remanded to him by the STAT. For disposal of this batch of revision cases and writ petitions, it would suffice if the facts of Tax Revision Case No.7 of 2011 are noted. The petitioner is a contractor executing works contracts mainly for the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Local Authorities in the State. The petitioner contended before the assessing authority that, since the works in question were spread over for more than a year, the value of purchases of goods used in the works contract should alone be taken into consideration in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (the Rules, for brevity). The assessing authority, by his order dated 15.02.2002, assessed the petitioner to tax giving them the benefit of deduction in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Rules. The said assessment order resulted in refund. As the petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the assessment order, they must be held to have accepted the assessment order. The Deputy Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act, for brevity) and passed a revisional order on 18.10.2004 disallowing certain deductions allowed by the assessing authority under Rule 6(2) of the Rules such as amount paid to sub-contractors, labour charges etc. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT in T.A.No.535 of 2005. Curiously the STAT, by its order dated 16.02.2010, without even examining the question whether the revisional authority was justified in disallowing the deductions granted in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Rules by the assessing authority, remanded the matter directing that the petitioner be assessed under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules. Consequent thereto, the Deputy Commissioner passed a fresh order of revision in terms of the order of the STAT, and directed the assessing authority to give effect to his order. The assessing authority passed the consequential order determining the tax payable by the petitioner in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules. Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the STAT had exceeded the scope of the appeal filed before it in directing the revisional authority to assess the petitioner in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules; the STAT could not have remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner on a question which had not even been raised before it in the appeal; and, in the absence of any cross objections being filed by the revenue, the STAT was wholly unjustified in directing the revisional authority to treat the petitioner as an assessee in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules. Sri P.Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that, in so far as the petitioner’s contention that they were required to be assessed only under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules is concerned, the assessing authority did not extend to them the benefit of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules and had, instead, taxed them under Rule 6(2) of the Rules; as the petitioner had accepted the order of assessment, and did not prefer an appeal thereagainst, they were not entitled to now contend that Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules should be applied instead of Rule 6(2) of the Rules. Learned Standing Counsel would fairly state that, since it is not even the petitioner’s case before the STAT that they were liable to be assessed under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules, and it is only the disallowance of deduction under Rule 6(2) of the Rules which was under challenge, the STAT had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order, and in remanding the matter to the revisional authority to determine the tax in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. As the petitioner has permitted the assessment order to attain finality, the STAT had rightly not examined his plea that he ought to have been assessed to tax in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules. The STAT has, however, erred in directing the Deputy Commissioner to determine tax in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules since it is neither the case of the petitioner nor that of the revenue that the petitioner’s case falls within the scope of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the Rules. The order of the STAT is liable to be, and is hereby, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the STAT to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding disallowance of deduction, earlier granted in their favour by the assessing authority under Rule 6(2) of the Rules, by the revisional authority. The STAT shall give both the petitioner and the respondents an opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the order of the STAT, in T.A.No.535 of 2008 and batch, are set aside the consequential orders passed both by the Deputy Commissioner (revisional authority) and the assessing authority are also set aside. The writ petitions are allowed and the Tax Revision Cases are disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 25.04.2011 KH