JUDGMENT
V. Sivaraman Nair, J.
1. What the petitioner seeks in this writ petition is a direction to the respondent to implement the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur, which was passed in Appeal Nos. 64 and 66 of 1991-92, dated June 21, 1991.
2. Counsel submits that under rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), it is obligatory on the part of the assessing authority to refund, within two months from the date of the communication of the order, any excess tax and surcharge or fee found to have been collected and additional tax and surcharge or fee which is found to be due, in the manner as if it were a tax and surcharge assessed by himself. Counsel submits that in view of the obligatory nature of the provisions in the Rules, the assessing authority has no escape than to refund the excess tax and surcharge, on completion of the period of two months from the date of the order of the appellate or revisional authority. He submits that this shall be notwithstanding a departmental appeal or revision. According to him, rule 35 of the Rules is an independent provision unconnected with any provision in the statute, including section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which deals with the powers of revision by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and other prescribed authorities.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes. The latter submits that any provision relating to procedural requisites or formalities to be complied with by the assessing authority in aid of an order of the appellate or revisional authority, is necessarily a provision subordinate to the statutory provision dealing with the power of appeal or revision.
4. Even assuming that the statute and the Rules have any provision or provisions which is/are irreconcilable with each other, we are of the opinion that the provisions of the governing statute shall prevail and not that of the Rules. In this view, we are not in a position to accept the submission urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the rule being an independent provision shall be given effect to notwithstanding the provisions in the governing statute.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes informs us that proceedings for revising the impugned appellate order, in exercise of the power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, have already been initiated. If this be the position, whatever objections the petitioner has to the exercise of revisional power, as its counsel urges before us, are open for being urged before the revisional authority. We are sure that any statutory revisional authority will duly consider in accordance with law any objection to jurisdiction or any other objection on merits, if they are properly raised by the assessee at the appropriate stage in the appropriate manner. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes assures us that this will be done. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures us that he will take all his objections before the revisional authority. We need only add that in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner pursuant to the appellate order is pending, it is necessary that the revisional authority under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act shall expedite the proceedings and pass appropriate orders, after hearing counsel for the petitioner also.
6. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
7. Counsel for the petitioner requests us orally under article 134-A of the Constitution of India for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We feel that the question involved in this matter is too insignificant to be raised before the Supreme Court in any proceedings. We feel that it is elementary that the rule shall always be subordinate to the governing statutory provision. In this view, we do not find any question of such general importance as requires to be decided by Supreme Court, even though counsel for the petitioner feels otherwise. We, therefore, dismiss the oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
8. Writ petition dismissed.