JUDGMENT
Ramanujulu Naidu, J.
1. This tax revision case is preferred by the State against the order dated 7th December, 1982 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, setting aside the order dated 20th June, 1980 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kakinada, as also the revised order of assessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, on 7th May, 1979 against the respondent.
2. The respondent is a firm dealing in jaggery. For the assessment year 1974-75 the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, by his proceedings dated 4th May, 1975, exempted from sales tax the entire turnover of Rs. 10,10,984.34 relating to sales of jaggery. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, however, initiated proceedings under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, seeking to revise the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, as in his opinion the exemption on the entire turnover returned by the respondent was wrongly granted. A notice was, therefore, issued calling upon the respondent to file its objections. In response to the notice, the respondent filed its objections on 14th November, 1975. On receipt of the objections, another notice dated 19th November, 1975 was issued to the respondent calling for more information. In response to the said notice, the respondent again filed detailed objections on 9th December, 1975. Even after the receipt of those objections, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, issued another notice dated 9th July, 1976 to the respondent inviting more information, whereupon the respondent filed its further objections on 11th September, 1976. On receipt of those objections, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, however, instructed the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, to cause further enquiries to be made and submit a detailed report to enable him to complete the proceedings initiated by him under section 20(2) of the Act. While calling for a detailed report of verification from the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, observed that the respondent should be afforded a full opportunity to prove the correctness of its claims. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, did not, however, afford any opportunity to the respondent, though the respondent did make a request for supply of copies of certain statements recorded behind its back and also prayed for affording an opportunity to cross-examine certain persons whose statements were recorded behind its back. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, accordingly submitted his report. On receipt of his report, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, instead of passing an order on the basis of the report, directed the Commercial Tax Officer himself to revise the assessment without notice to the respondent. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, thereupon initiated proceedings under section 14(4)(cc) of the Act and completed the same without affording any opportunity to the respondent to adduce evidence in support of its claims or to cross-examine persons whose statements recorded behind its back were relied upon. Aggrieved by the said revised order of assessment, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kakinada. The appeal was allowed and the matter was again remitted to the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, for affording an opportunity to the respondent as originally directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, earlier. The said order of the Assistant commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kakinada, was appealed against by the respondent before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed both the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Kakinada, and the revised order of assessment of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram.
3. From the above narration of the facts, it is clear that the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, in revising the order of assessment made by him earlier withdrawing the exemption granted to the respondent, merely acted at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, and carried out his directions instead of applying his mind independently. In other words, he was not of any independent opinion that the exemption granted to the respondent earlier was wrongly made. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly relied upon the following observations of the their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta [1958] 9 STC 428 :
“We are really surprised at the manner in which the first respondent dealt with the matter of this assessment. It is clear that he did not exercise his own judgment in the matter and faithfully followed the instructions conveyed to him by the Assistant Commissioner (C.S.) without giving the appellant an opportunity to meet the points urged against them. The whole procedure was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted was, to say the least, unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the impartial and fair administration of the sales tax department concerned.”
4. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the revised order of assessment was wholly vitiated.
5. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, however, submits that the Tribunal, instead of quashing the revised order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ramachandrapuram, should have remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, for completion of the proceedings under section 20(2) of the Act. We see no substance in this submission as the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, under section 20(2) of the Act were still pending before him when the Tribunal passed the impugned order.
6. In the result, the tax revision case is dismissed. No costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 250.
7. Petition dismissed.