STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus T.G. LAKSHMAIAH SETTY AND SONS

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 13-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

L 
~ • 
+ 
• 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
T.G. LAKSHMAIAH SETTY AND SONS 
APRIL 13, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957: Sectio11 20 Assessme11t 
Ordei--<:hallenge--Assessee-!11voking suo motu power of Revision-Pennis-
sibility of-Held assessee can11ot i11voke suo motu power under Section 
20-Aggrieved assessee can only pursue remedies provided under the Act-He c 
has no right to seek revision of the order of the assessment passed by the 
original authorities. 
The respondent .. asseessee l\'3S carrying on business in groundnut oil 
seeds and cotton seeds. For the assessment years 1967-68, 1970-71 and D 
1971-72 the respondent was assessed under section 5(1) of the Andhra 
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the basis that "cotton lint" was 
exigible to tax at 3% as unclassified general goods. Relaying on a decision 
in Alimchand Topandas Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 37 STC 603, 
wherein it was held that cotton lint comes under cotton waste and was 
exigible to tax at 1 % under Entry 69 Schedule I of the Act, the respondent E 
represented, under Section 20(2) of the Act, to the Deputy Commissioner 
to revise the assessments but he dismissed the revisions. The Sales Tax 
Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's revision by applying the ratio in 
Alim Chand's case and directed reassessment under Entry 69 of Schedule 
I to the Act. The High Court rejected the State's revision in limi11e. 
F 
In State's appeals to this Court on the question whether a revision 
under Section 20(2) was maintainable at the instance of the assessee; 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The validity of an assessment order must be tested In an G 
appeal or revision Hied by an assessee as provided for In the Act and In 
no other way. The Act has given right and remedy of appeal or a revision 
to the dealer, wherever It was so Intended. Section 20 Is a suo motu 
revlslonal power exclusively given to the Commissioner or the Joint Com-
missioner or the Deputy Commissioner or the Commercial Tax Officer, H 
523 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1994) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
as the case may be, to revise the order or the proceedings of the officers 
subordinate to the respective officers. The assessee cannot i111voke the suo 
motu power of the authorities under section 20. Any order validly made 
does not become void or illegal by ;ubsequent declaration of law. The suo 
motu power was conferred on higher authorities to correct i~rrors of law 
B 
or to correct improper or irregular procedure or illegality in the proce-
dure, to safeguard the interest of the revenue, as there was no express 
power given to the State, to file an appeal against order of assessment. 
(529-D-E; 526-H) 
2. The Tribunal had wrongly held that the Commissioner could 
exercise the revisional po,ver at the instance of the assessee under section 
C 20(1) and (2) of the Act. (529-G) 
3. The High Court has committed an error in rejectin1i the revision 
by the State. The aggrieved assessee has only to pursue the remedies 
provided in the Act and he has no right to make an appliication under 
Section 20 of the Act seeking revision of the orders of assessments made 
D under the Act by original authorities. Consequently the orde1Cs of the High 
Court and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are set aside and the order of 
the Dy. Commissioner is restored. (529-H, 530-A-B] 
Alimchand Topandas Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 37 STC 
E 
603 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tribune Trnst, AIR (1948) Privy 
Council 102, referred to. 
F 
Re. Kalluri Bheemalingam & Ors.,(1967) 19 STC 116 and Sree 
Ramachandra Ginning & Oil Mills & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 
19 STC 354, approved. 
The State of A.P. v. Lalitha Oil Mills & Ors., 42 STC 169, and Sri 
Venkateswara Rice, Ginning and Grounding Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh, (1971) 28 STC 599, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4857/89 
G & 2798 of 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.85 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in T.R.C. No. 60 & 61 of 1985. 
C. Sitaramaiah, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Promila Choudhary and Nikhil 
H N ayyar for the Appellants. 
__..,., 
I 
t 
• 
STATE OF A.P. v. T.G. LAKSHMAIAH SETTY & SONS. 
525 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by : 
A 
C.A. No. 2798/83 is taken on board. 
These two appeals relate to different assessments under the Andhra 
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Ac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.