ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Both the appeals are filed by the same assessee challenging the common order dated 1.10.1994 in CCT’s. Procs. No. L.V(1)370/1994 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, on various grounds.
2. As both the appeals arise out of the common order, they are disposed of by the following common order.
3. Appellant is the registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. Final assessment was made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda on a gross and net turnovers of Rs.68,14,57,810/- and Rs.43,37,60,440/- respectively for the assessment year 1988-89 and for the assessement year 1989-90 on a gross and net turnovers of Rs.96,16,86,150/- and Rs.58,50,44,875/- respectively. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad Rural Division. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, through his order, remanded the assessments on the disputed turnovers for both the years concerning transport charges collected and rate of sales tax on gunny/HDPE bags sold with cement. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, while exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity “the Act”) sought to revise the remittal order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and issued certain directions to the Commercial Tax Officer to be followed while completing the reassessment, by common order dated 1.10.1994. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes came to the conclusion that there is no necessity to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the Commercial Tax Officer, however directed the Commercial Tax Officer to follow certain observations made by him in the interest of the revenue. It is also recorded by the Commissioner that the remittal order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is up held on two issues and allowed the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the matter in the light of the observations made by him also apart from the observations made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
4. As against this order, dated 1.10.1994 made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the present two Special Appeals are filed by the assessee.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant primarily submits that the power available to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 20(1) of the Act is exercisable only when it is found that the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Learned counsel states that the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is neither prejudicial to the interests of revenue nor the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has not decided the matter on merits, which could be said to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue and as such the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ought not to have exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 20(1) of the Act. Learned counsel pleads that on this ground alone the Special Appeals are to be allowed.
6. We have also heard the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes appearing on behalf of the respondents.
7. It is true, under the scheme of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Section 20 provides sufficient power to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to revise any assessment made suo motu by calling for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded by any authority, officer or person subordinate to him, under the provisions of this Act, including sub-section (2) of this Section and that in the interests of revenue, he may make such enquiry, or cause such enquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may initiate proceedings to revise, modify or set aside such order or proceeding and may pass such order in reference there to as he thinks fit. The power vested with the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is suo motu power and that unless and until the Commissioner summons the record, examines the same and satisfies that the order so passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial or non-prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may not be in a position to predetermine whether such order is prejudicial or non-prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. That being so, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes while exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, only after summoning and examining the record could make a finding as to whether such order has been prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and if it is found that the order passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, could set aside the said order. In this case what has been done is while exercising power under Section 20(1) of the Act, the Commissioner, after verifying the orders satisfied himself that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and has recorded a finding to that effect and therefore, has not interfered with the said order. That means this exercise has been done only after verifying and satisfying himself that the remittal order so passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
8. It can never be said that the Commissioner shall exercise such powers only when he feels that the order passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. That could be done only after verifying the order and makes sure that the order so passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The language appears in the provisions of the Act says that the Commissioner may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceedings recorded by any authority. The words “suo motu” introduced by the Legislature in the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act would necessarily imply that the Commissioner has to satisfy while summoning the record and in the event if he is satisfied that it would be appropriate that the order passed by the subordinate authority could be either rejected or accepted depending upon the facts of the case.
9. The powers exercisable by the Commissioner are suo motu, that means, in each and every case he could call for the records relating to the order passed by the subordinate authority. The next step would be, if the Commissioner is satisfied with the order passed by the subordinate authority when prejudicial to the interests of revenue, then only interference is required, otherwise no interference is required. These are the facets of the provisions contemplated under Section 20(1) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be construed to say that first of all the Commissioner shall satisfy that the order passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial to the interests of revenue and then only he can call for records and interfere. We may dispel the myth of contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that unless the Commissioner summons the record and examines the correctness of the order whether it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue or not, the Commissioner cannot come to a conclusion and take appropriate decision. It is for this purpose suo motu powers are exercisable by the Commissioner seeking summoning of the records and then examine the correctness of the order and if the Commissioner is satisfied that the order so passed is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, then only interfere with the order and other wise close the matter. This what exactly has been done by the Commissioner in this case, who has called for the records and has given notice to the other side i.e., assessee, heard the assessee and later has come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has to be interfered with. That means the Commissioner has strictly complied with the requirements as contemplated under Section 20(1) of the Act.
10. Therefore, we are of the view, the Commissioner while exercising powers under Section 20(1) of the Act need not necessarily come to the conclusion that the order passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial interests of revenue. First of all he could call for record and examine the record and only after examining the record come to the conclusion as to whether the order passed by the subordinate authority is prejudicial to the interests of revenue or not. Therefore, submissions made on behalf of the appellant before this Court in the teeth of the provisions of the Act, in our considered view, are unsustainable and we reject the said submissions.
11. Since the Commissioner has already ordered that the remittal order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner need not be interfered with, we think the effort made by preferring these appeals against the order made by the Commissioner is unwarranted.
12. For all the reasons, we hold that the order passed by the Commissioner is just and reasonable and is in tune with the provisions of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act and requires no interference by this Court.
13. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. Since the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed, we direct the Commercial Tax Officer, Miryalaguda, to complete reassessment as ordered by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as expeditiously as possible as the assessment involved in this case is for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90.