Skip to content


Satyanarayana Srinivas Bung Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number Writ Petition Nos. 42 and 43 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1975]35STC617(AP)
AppellantSatyanarayana Srinivas Bung
RespondentThe State of Andhra Pradesh and ors.
Appellant Advocate N. Madhusudhan Raj, Adv.
Respondent Advocate A. Mahadev, Adv. for ; the Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 8. in the result, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel fail and these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs......specified goods which were taxed only at a single point under the state act.2. subsequently, the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, warangal division, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under section 9(2) of the central act issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25th may, 1972, and 5th october, 1972, proposing to revise the orders of the commercial tax officer in view of the amendment of the central sales tax act by the amending act 28 of 1969. the petitioner made its representations objecting to the revision of the assessments. by his orders dated 14th july, 1972, and 18th october, 1972, the deputy commissioner held that the central act was amended by act 28 of 1969 and that section 9 of the amending act validates the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions is M/s. Satyanarayana Srinivas Bung, which is a firm registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the 'State Act' and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the 'Central Act'. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Central Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nizamabad, by his order dated 27 th February, 1965. The period for which the assessment relates to is 1st April, 1963, to 15th November, 1963. The petitioner claimed exemption from tax liability on the inter-State sales of paddy, turmeric and gunny bags contending that they were subject to tax at the purchase point under the State Act and therefore not liable to be taxed under the Central Act. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim for exemption. In respect of the period 16th November, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, similar exemption was claimed by the petitioner. But the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the same. The petitioner then preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, who allowed the exemption claimed in respect of the turnover relating to inter-State sales of paddy, turmeric and gunnies by his order dated 31st July, 1968. This exemption was allowed in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimiah Setty [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 ( S.C.), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the expression 'levied' in Section 9(1) of the Central Act prior to amendment referred to the expression 'levied' in Section 5(3)(a) of the State Act and, therefore, the Central Act had not made a departure in the manner of levy of tax on the specified goods which were taxed only at a single point under the State Act.

2. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal Division, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under Section 9(2) of the Central Act issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25th May, 1972, and 5th October, 1972, proposing to revise the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer in view of the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Amending Act 28 of 1969. The petitioner made its representations objecting to the revision of the assessments. By his orders dated 14th July, 1972, and 18th October, 1972, the Deputy Commissioner held that the Central Act was amended by Act 28 of 1969 and that Section 9 of the amending Act validates the assessments, reassessments and other proceedings taken under the provisions of the principal Act before the commencement of the Amendment Act and that the original assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer was in order and, in that view, he set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nizamabad, subject to some modification with regard to the rate of tax in respect of the turnover of rice at 1J per cent instead of 2 per cent. It is these orders that are now challenged in these writ petitions.

3. The first contention of Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner and restore the original assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer. I am unable to comprehend this submission of the learned counsel. Under Section 9(2) of the Central Act read with Section 20(1) and (2) of the State Act, the Deputy Commissioner has suo motu powers to call for and examine the record of any order passed by any officer or authority subordinate to him and under Section 20(3) this power is exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner within four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer. The appellate orders were passed on 31st July, 1968, and 28th October, 1968, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the orders in revision were passed within four years from the dates of the orders in appeal passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the orders of the appellate authority.

4. It is further contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and restore the original order of assessment as the original order of assessment is not in accordance with the Central Act as amended by the provisions of the Amending Act 28 of 1969. Here again I find it difficult to follow the submission of the learned counsel. It is not the case of the petitioner or the contention of the learned counsel that there is any change with regard to the point at which the inter-State sales of turmeric, paddy and gunny bags, which are the subject-matter of these writ petitions, are taxable or that there is any change in the quantum of the turnover which is taxable or that there is any variation in the rate. What all the Deputy Commissioner did was to disallow the exemption granted by the

5. Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the ruling in Yaddalam Lakshmi-narasimhiah Setty's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.), which has been superseded by the amending Act and to restore the original order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer which has been validated by Section 9 of the amending Act and this amending Act has been given retrospective effect and it undoubtedly applies to the assessments in question. Therefore, the contention that the original order of assessment is not in accordance with the Central Act as amended by the Amendment Act 28 of 1969 has no substance. In State of Kerala v. Joseph and Co. [1970] 25 S.T.C. 483 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). was superseded by the Ordinance of 1969, which has since been passed into an Amending Act (28 of 1969), and that the provisions of the Central Act as amended by the Ordinance have retrospective operation. In that view, their Lordships set aside the orders passed by the sales tax authorities, the Tribunal and the High Court and directed the assessment of tax to be made in the manner provided by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Ordinance. Relying on this decision, it is contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that, in the instant cases also, the orders of assessment should have been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and the proceedings sent back to the original assessing authority to make assessments in accordance with the Central Act as amended by the Central Act 28 of 1969. But there is no merit in this contention also. I specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to in what manner the assessment has to be made under the amended Central Act. But the learned counsel could not say in what manner the turnover or the assessment would undergo a change in view of the amended Act. As I mentioned earlier, the Central Act does not bring about any change with regard to the taxable point in respect of the commodities with which we are concerned in these writ petitions or the quantum of their turnover or the rates at which they are taxable. Therefore, the assessments were properly made in accordance with the Central Act as amended by Act 28 of 1969 and, therefore, the question of making fresh assessments in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act as amended by the amending Act does not arise.

6. It is next contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that the Deputy Commissioner could not have revised the assessments as they are beyond four years from the date on which the original assessments were made. This submission is sought to be supported by a reference to rules 14-A(8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Rules framed under Section 13 of the Central Act. But this contention is also devoid of merit. Here, the Deputy Commissioner is seeking to exercise the power of revision conferred on him by Section 9(2) of the Central Act read with Section 20 of the State Act which power of revision he can exercise within four years from the date on which the order which was sought to be revised was served on the dealer. In the instant cases, the appellate orders .of the Assistant Commissioner were made on 31st July, 1968, and 28th October, 1968, and the revisional orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14th July, 1972, and 18th October, 1972, respectively. Therefore, there is no illegality in the exercise of the revisional power by the Deputy Commissioner.

7. What, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends is that this power of revision is subject to the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 14-A(11) read with Sub-rules (8), (9) and (10). But this argument is based on a fallacy. Sub-rules (8), (9) and (10) provide for rectification of an assessment by the original authority on the ground that the turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed or that the tax has been assessed at too low a rate or that an arithmetical mistake apparent from the record has occurred and this power could also be exercised by an appellate authority or by a revising authority under Rule 14-A(11). So, the period of limitation of four years prescribed under Rule 14-A(11) has no application to the power of revision exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 9(2) of the Central Act read with Section 20(1) and (2) of the State Act because a separate period of limitation is prescribed by Section 20(3) of the State Act for exercise of the revisional powers. The learned counsel relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court which consisted of Kondaiah and Sriramulu, JJ., in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Rama Laxmi Satyanarayana Rice Mill [1975] 35 S.T.C. 601 (T. R. C. No. 8 of 1972 dated 30th November, 1972). But that decision has no application to the facts of the present cases. It is now sought to be contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that, in respect of the turnover of rice, the rate has been altered by the revising authority. Therefore, it is a fresh assessment sought to be made by the revising authority and it cannot be done by the revising authority beyond the period of four years prescribed by Rule 14-A(11). But the turnover relating to rice is not the subject-matter of the writ petitions. Moreover, there does not seem to be any force in the contention even on merits because what all the Deputy Commissioner did was to apply the correct rate at which the turnover of rice is taxable under the Central Act. This, the revisional authority can undoubtedly do in exercise of the revisional power.

8. In the result, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel fail and these two writ petitions are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 in each.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //