THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.8878 and 8883 of 2008 February 28, 2011 Between: M/s.P.Dasaradharamaiah & Sons, represented by its Partner Mr.P.Avinash Chand … Petitioner And The Commercial Tax Officer, Eluru Bazar Circle, Guntur And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.8878 and 8883 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) The order of the Deputy Commissioner (the second respondent), revising the order of assessment passed by the first respondent for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, is under challenge in these two writ petitions. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in diesel, petrol etc., and is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent. The petitioner owns oil tankers which are used for transportation of petroleum products. The first respondent, in the order of assessment, held that the transaction was not liable to tax under Section 5E of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the APGST Act). The second respondent revised the order of assessment holding that the transaction amounted to transfer of the right to use goods, and fell within the ambit of Section 5E(a) of the APGST Act. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petitions are filed. Before this Court, Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would raise the following grounds: (1) the first respondent–assessing authority had merely followed the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner, for the assessment year 2004-05, and the revisional authority (the Deputy Commissioner) could not have revised the order of assessment as he belonged to the same rank as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner; (2) The bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act applies both in the case of assessees and non-assessees as long as the issue before the Tribunal, and the issue before the revisional authority, is the same; and (3) The show cause notice, preceding the order of revision, is bereft of reasons and, as such, the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of putting forth his objections as he was not even made aware of the grounds on which the order of the first respondent–assessing authority was sought to be revised. None of these contentions merit acceptance. Firstly, unlike orders of Superior Courts like the High Court and the Supreme Court, the order of a quasi-judicial authority is not binding on quasi-judicial authorities subordinate to them for a different assessment year unless the legislature has so provided. No provision of the APGST Act, which makes the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in an appeal relating to one assessment year binding on the revisional authority for a different assessment year, has been brought to our notice. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the submission that the revisional authority could not have revised the order of assessment as he belongs to the same rank as that of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. I n BSNL v Union of India[1] the Supreme Court held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years as res judicata applies to debar Courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct. Insofar as the bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act is concerned, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Indo National Limited v Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[2], it is only when the question pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) is on a question of law, and the said question also arises for consideration before him would the revisional authority be barred from exercising jurisdiction, under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act. Sri V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that this ground, of the bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act, was urged only during the course of hearing before the revisional authority, and does not form part of the objections filed before him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the issue which is pending before the STAT in M/s.Yedla Lingaiah was on the question of law whether receipt of hire charges for supply of oil tankers for transporting oil products was exigible to tax under Section 5E(a) of the APGST Act. It is necessary to note that Section 5E of the APGST Act is in pari materia with Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. A Division Bench of this Court, in M/s.G.S.Lamba & Sons v STAT, Hydeabad[3], held that such transactions are exigible to tax under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act. In view of the law laid down by this Court it is whole unnecessary for us to now examine whether the revisional authority was justified in holding that the bar under Section 20(2A) of the APGST Act did not apply. Both the STAT and the quasi-judicial authorities under the APGST Act are bound by the decisions of this Court and, in the light of the judicial pronouncement in M/s.G.S.Lamba & Sons, the transaction aforementioned is exigible to tax under Section 5E(a) of the APGST Act. The third contention urged does not also merit acceptance. A perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, proposing to revise the order of assessment would belie the contention that it is bereft of reasons. It is evident therefrom that hire charges received by the petitioner, on supply of oil tankers for transportation of oil products, were sought to be brought to tax under Section 5E of the APGST Act. As long as the petitioner is made aware of the grounds of revision, it is wholly unnecessary for the revisional authority to give elaborate reasons for proposing to revise the order of assessment. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the second respondent. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) February 28, 2011 YS [1] (2006) 3 SCC 1 : (2006) 145 STC 91 [2] (2004) 136 STC 586 (FB) [3] T.Rev.C.No.154 of 2010 and batch, dated 28.1.2011