State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kothuri Venkateswarlu and Sons

Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. and Upendralal Waghray, J.—This revision case is directed against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 13th October, 1988, whereby the Appellate Tribunal directed that the revision, which was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 23rd September, 1987, by the Deputy Commissioner, by heard and disposed of by him in accordance with law. It appears, that the relevant assessment year is 1983-84 and the order of assessment was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on 26th June, 1984.

The petitioner-assessee, M/s. Kothuri Venkateswarlu and Sons, aggrieved by the said assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer preferred a revision petition u/s 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as prevalent at that time. Section 20(1) of the Act confers a right of revision on both parties at the relevant time. With effect from 1st July, 1985, section 20(1) of the Act was amended by the State Act (Act 18 of 1985) whereby the power of interference of the Deputy Commissioner in revision u/s 20(1) was restricted to cases where the orders were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which means, that the power of revision was limited only for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee. This change came into force on 1st July, 1985. The revision petition was filed before the Deputy Commissioner on 14th November, 1986. The Tribunal took the view that the relevant law to be seen was the unamended section 20(1) and not the amended one and, therefore, remanded the matter of the Deputy Commissioner to dispose it of afresh.

It is settled law that right of appeal or revision are vested rights of parties. In taxation matters the statutory right of appeal or revision are also vested rights and is to be determined from what was the law when the order of assessment was passed. On 26th June, 1984, when the assessment order was passed there was a provision for an unrestricted revision available to the parties against the Revenue and that was a vested right and the amending Act 18 of 1985 could not affect the right, unless it specially takes it away. The amending Act is not retrospective and does not specifically take away such right. Therefore, the right of revision under the unamended section 20(1) was still available and the Tribunal is right in directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the revision in accordance with law, consequently, the revision case is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.