Case Law Details
Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Section 67(5) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 pellucidly tells that authority for clarifications shall have the power to review, amend or revoke its rulings at any time for good and sufficient cause by giving an opportunity to the affected parties. It says that an order giving affect to such review or amendment or revocation shall not be subject to the period of limitation. What all Rule-5 pronounces is the power of ACAR to review, amend or revoke its ruling. A plain reading of this provision does not in restricted terms say that the aforesaid power is only a suo motu power i.e., exercisable by ACAR on its own proposition and not by the application of the dealer or other affected parties. Thus, in our considered view, the review can be taken up also on the application by the dealer and other affected parties.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The short but important question involved in this writ petition is, whether a review contemplated under Section 67(5) of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax, 2005 (for short “AP VAT Act”) can be undertaken only by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling ( for short ‘ACAR’) by exercising suo motu power or whether a dealer who invited clarification and advance ruling from ACAR can also seek for review being not satisfied with its order?
2. The factual matrix of the case shorn of unnecessary details are thus:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
