ORDER
S.R. NAYAK, J
1. The petitioner is a dealer in groundnut oil and is registered under the A.P. General Sales Tax, 1957 (the Act, for short). For the assessment year 1982-83, the Commercial Tax Officer, by his order dated 11-4-1994 completed the assessment determining the net turnover of Rs.6,80,170/- which included an estimated turnover of Rs.6,21,600/-. On 21.2.1983, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer inspected the premises of the petitioner and noticed excess stock of 25 barrels of groundnut oil worth Rs.56,500/- which is not supported by purchase bills or way bills and not accounted for in the books of account by the time of inspection. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner questioning the estimated suppression added by the assessing authority at 10 times of the actual suppression. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner came to the opinion that the estimated suppression 10 times of the actual suppression relates to turnover of Rs.6,21,600/- and out of such estimated suppression there was justification for only one time addition to the tune of Rs.56,475/-and 10 times addition is unjustified. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal in part relating to turnover of Rs.5,65,125/- and dismissed the appeal regarding the estimated turnover of Rs.56,475/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short) in T.A.No.365 of 1985 questioning the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner as regards dismissal of his appeal relating to turnover of 56,475/- i.e., one time addition. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by its order-dated 12-8-1988. Thereafterwards, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Legal, in exercise of his revisional power under Section 20 of the Act revised the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner holding that the estimation of the suppressed turnover of Rs.5,65,125/- is valid and justified. Against that order of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner preferred TA No.797 of 1989 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-9-1993 dismissed the appeal. Hence this TRC under Section 22 (1) of the Act.
2. In this TRC the following questions of law are said to arise for decision:
1. Whether the Tribunal failed to see that the issue in T.A. No.365 of 1985 is regarding the net turnover to be determined and as such issue is decided in the said appeal the jurisdiction of revision authority is clearly barred under Section 20 (2-A) of the Act?
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to see that entire assessment was open before it in T.A. No.365 of 1985 including the turnover deleted by. the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in view of its wide powers under Section 21 (4) of the Act under which the Tribunal has power to enhance, annul and pass such order as it deems fit with regard to the matter before it?
3. Whether the Tribunal failed to see that assessment under the Act particularly in regard to turnover is only by one proceeding as held by this Hon’ble Court in 68 STC 126 and that in petitioner’s case the assessment has culminated in T.A.No.365 of 1985 and consequently revision order of the Joint Commissioner is without jurisdiction?
4. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the restoration of estimated turnover by Joint Commissioner for 10 months preceding the date of inspection is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case?
3. Mr. S. Dwarakanath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that with the dismissal of T.A.No. 365 of 1985 by the Tribunal, the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner merged with the order and, therefore, it is totally impermissible for the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Legal, to revise the order in exercise of the purported power under Section 20 of the Act, particularly having due regard to the bar contained in sub-Section 2-A of that Section. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel would place reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Manilal Manikji Private Limited, 82 STC 399, Krishna Rice and Oil Mills v. Commissioner of Saks Tax, 67 STC 195 and Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 80 STC 43.
4. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 reads:
“2-A. The power under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be exercised by the authority specified therein in respect of any issue or question which is the subject-matter of an appeal before or which was decided on appeal by the appellate Tribunal under Section 21.”
5. The language employed in sub-section (2-A) is quite clear, precise, and unambiguous and it does not admit more than one meaning. In order to attract the provisions of sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 of the Act, what has to be established is that a decision is already taken on an issue or question by the Tribunal in exercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 21 of the Act. In other words, unless the appellate Tribunal under Section 21 has entertained an appeal on an issue or question or such a question or issue is already decided by the appellate Tribunal, applying the bar contained under sub-section (2-A), against the revisional power conferred upon the authorities under the Act under Section 20 of the Act does not arise at all. In this precise background, we have to look at the admitted facts in this case as already pointed out supra.
6. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner in the appeal preferred by the petitioner-assessee against the assessment order granted the relief partially, that is to say, he found fault with addition of 10 times estimated addition, but concurred with the view taken by the assessing authority that one time estimated addition in respect of the excess 25 barrels of groundnut oil found at the time of inspection on 21.2.1983 is justified. After this event, the petitioner carried the matter before the Tribunal to the extent the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner went against him. Therefore, it is trite to state that what fell for consideration at the hands of the Appellate Tribunal was whether one time addition made by the assessing authority and sustained by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was justified and legal. That was the only issue that was addressed to the Tribunal and on which issue the Tribunal gave decision. The question whether 10 times estimated addition was justified and legal was never addressed to the Tribunal and there was no decision of the Tribunal on that issue. If this is the factual background in this case, it cannot be said that the bar contained in sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 of the Act is attracted.
7. Sri S. Dwarakanath Reddy, learned Counsel, would also contend that undoubtedly the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction and competence under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or penalty or both and certain other powers conferred upon it under sub-section (4) of Section 21 and in the wisdom of the appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal did not think it appropriate or proper, when it heard the appeal of the petitioner on the earlier occasion, to enhance the assessment by adding 10 times estimated addition and in that view of the matter it should be held that the appellate Tribunal when it decided the appeal put its stamp of authority to the decision of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and if it is so held the bar contained in sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 of the Act gets attracted and it ousts the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner, CT, Legal. This contention of the learned Counsel is not well founded. We say this because, sub-section (4) of Section 21 is only an enabling provision which empowers the appellate Tribunal either suo motu or on an application to enhance the assessment etc. Simply because the Appellate Tribunal did not choose to enhance the liability of the petitioner in the earlier appeal filed by the petitioner-assessee, from that fact itself it cannot be concluded that the Appellate Tribunal has put the stamp of authority to the Appellate order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It is too preliminary for us to state that the specific issue whether the assessing authority is justified in adding 10 times estimated addition never fell for consideration and decision before the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 of the Act does not speak about the assessment year as a whole. On the other hand, it speaks about an issue or a question. An assessment in a particular year may throw many issues or questions for decision-making by the various authorities under the Act and the Appellate Tribunal.
8. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. We say this because, the statutes with which the Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad and Bombay High Courts in the aforementioned three decisions dealt with are not in pan materia with the provisions of sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the TRC does not involve any question of law.
9. Accordingly, the TRC is dismissed. No costs.