Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Real Regrigeration vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 18 April, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A.No.1 of 2022
In
W.P.No.20417 of 2020
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao)
Writ Petition No.20417/2020 is filed by the petitioner
questioning the Assessment Order passed by the 1st respondent in
A.O.No.200913 dated 06.03.2020 for the assessment period 2016-17
under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas
Act, 2001, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. This Court vide common order dated 15.06.2021 disposed of
W.P.Nos.20417 and 20419 of 2020. So far as W.P.No.20417/2020 is
concerned, while disposing of the said writ petition a direction was
given to 3rd respondent to consider the factual and legal points raised
by the petitioner and after hearing both parties, pass an appropriate
order in the appeal No.VSP/13/2020-21 in accordance with governing
law and rules expeditiously, but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was further directed that on
the request of the petitioner the 3rd respondent may hear the other
similar appeals filed by the petitioner together.
3. Thus, as can be seen, the above order was passed on the
premise that as against the impugned Assessment Order No.200913
passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal
No.VSP/13/2020-21 before the 3rd respondent and therefore a
direction was given to the 3rd respondent to hear both parties and pass
order within three months. However, the case of the petitioner is that
though the petitioner filed appeals against the assessment orders for
the years 2012-13 to 2015-16, he did not prefer any appeal against the
Assessment Order No.200913 for the assessment period 2016-17 and
on the other hand, he straight away filed the writ petition against the
said Assessment Order No.200913 and in that view, there is an error
apparent on the face of the record in passing the order in
W.P.No.20417 of 2020 under the premise that appeal
No.VSP/13/2020-21 was filed against the said Assessment Order. The
petitioner thus prayed to allow the review petition and modify the
order in W.P.No.20417 of 2020 suitably.
4. Heard Sri Sarveswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes representing
the respondents.
5. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC inter alia lays down that when the
Court finds that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record or for any sufficient reason, it can review its own judgment.
In Board of Control for Cricket, India v. Netaji Cricket Club1, the
Apex Court observed thus:
AIR 2005 SC 592 = MANU/SC/0019/2005
"89. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an
application for review. Such an application for review would be
maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important
piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the
face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account
of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.
90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a
mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a
review of the order. An application for review would also be
maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefore. What
would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order
47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception
of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for
review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine
"actus curiae neminem gravabit"
6. In the light of the above jurisprudence, when the petitioner's
case is perused, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for
petitioner, in the pleadings of W.P.No.20417 of 2020 it is only stated
that appeals against the orders passed for the earlier years i.e., 2012-
13 to 2015-16 were pending before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner
has not stated that an appeal was filed also against the Assessment
Order for the period 2016-17. While passing the order in the writ
petition the Court on the premise that an appeal was filed, directed the
3rd respondent to dispose of the same within three months which is
admittedly an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore on
the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, the order in
W.P.No.20417 of 2020 has to be reviewed. Hence the common order
dated 15.06.2021 is concerned, the same is modified as follows:
"Writ Petition No.20417 of 2020 is disposed of
giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against
the impugned Assessment Order No.200913 dated
06.03.2020 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 before the
3rd respondent within three (3) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, in which case, the 3rd
respondent shall admit the appeal and after hearing both
sides, pass an appropriate order in accordance with
governing law and rules expeditiously, but not later than
three (3) months from the date of filing of the appeal."
In the result this review petition is allowed. The Office shall
furnish the copy of the reviewed order to the petitioner.
_________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
_________________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
18.04.2022
krk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO
I.A.No.1 of 2022
IN
W.P.No.20417 of 2020
18th April, 2022
krk
