SARASWATHI MEDICAL HALL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1993-9-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 14,1993

Saraswathi Medical Hall Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) in CCT's Ref. L. III (1)/4960/87 dated 31 -8 -1988 by which the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 462/83 -84 dated 21 -2 -1985 were revised and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer, XI Circle, Hyderabad) for DE NOVO enquiry and disposal. The assessing authority in Assessment No. 2310/81 -82 (CST) dated 22 -9 -1983 had assessed the appellant to tax on a net turnover of Rs. 17,50,818/ - under the C.S.T. Act treating the said turnover as relating to inter -State sales of Medicines. The appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that he purchased the medicines from M/s. Indian Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad and sold the said medicines to dealers outside the State by endorsing the L.Rs. in favour of the outside the State purchases during the course of movement of the goods which were directly despatched by his seller to the outside State purchasers and that therefore the inter -State sales effected by him to the outside State purchasers amount to second inter -State sales eligible for exemption under section 6(2) of C.S.T. Act. He also filed 102 E -1 forms, 8 'C' forms and 5 'D' forms relating to the said transactions before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner received the said E -1. 'C' and 'D' forms and remitted the matter to the assessing authority to verify the said forms and pass orders afresh granting relief if the forms filed are otherwise in order. The Joint Commissioner took up the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in revision and set aside the same and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for DE NOVO disposal of the matter. The present appeal is filed questioning the said orders of the Joint Commissioner contending that the Joint Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and that such orders passed by him are also not valid and legal in view of the material on record and the same may therefore be set aside.
(2.) THE points for consideration in this appeal are - (i) Whether the Joint Commissioner (CT) Legal, has no jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act? (ii) Whether the revisional orders of the Joint Commissioner are not valid and legal, and are liable to be set aside? Point No. 1: The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant regarding the jurisdiction for the Joint Commissioner to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is that during the relevant assessment year 1981 -82 the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not shown as subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Rule 44 -A(i) of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules, that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was included in clause (i) of Rule 44 -A only with effect from 5 -11 -1986 by G.O.Ms. No. 1445, that under Sec. 20(1) the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has got power to revise the orders of his subordinates, that inasmuch as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not shown as subordinate of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not entitled to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner prior to 5 -11 -1986 and that the Joint Commissioner (Legal) cannot also be said to have jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner inasmuch as the Commissioner himself was not having jurisdiction to revise such orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. But such contention cannot however be accepted in view of the provisions of Sec. 20(2) and Rule 44 -A(2) of A.P.G.S.T. Rules. Rule 44 -A(2) as stood during the relevant assessment year 1981 -82 shows that Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) was having jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who is subordinate to him for the purpose of exercise of the powers of revision under Sec. 20. Sec. 20(2) provides that powers of the nature referred to in sub -section (1) may also be exercised by the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Commercial Tax Officer in the case of orders passed or proceedings recorded by authorities, officers or persons subordinate to them. The powers referred to in sub -section (1) of Sec. 20 relate to the revisional powers. Under rule 44 -A(2) the Joint Commissioner (Legal) is conferred with such powers of revision regarding the orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who is considered as subordinate to him Therefore as for as the Joint Commissioner (Legal) is concerned, he was having jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner even prior to 5 -11 -1986 under Sec. 20(2). Therefore in the present case the Joint Commissioner was having jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has also tried to contend that the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) cannot be said to have jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner inasmuch as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has merely remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal and inasmuch as it cannot be said in view of such remand that there was any prejudice to the interests of revenue as contemplated in Sec. 20(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. But such contention cannot also be accepted. It is seen from a perusal of the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner that he has chosen to accept the E -1, 'C' and 'D' forms filed by the appellant and appears to treat the transactions as second inter -State sales eligible for exemption if such forms were found to be in order by the assessing authority after remand. But the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) has however observed in his orders that there is reasonable material to disbelieve the transactions as second inter -State sales in view of the particulars contained in the invoices and the L.Rs. etc., and that therefore the matter should be once again enquired into by the assessing authority afresh on the basis of the material by conducting DE NOVO enquiry and pass fresh orders. The assessing authority will therefore have the liberty to conduct DENOVO enquiry and pass fresh orders to decide whether the transactions are eligible for exemption under Sec. 6(2) or not. If the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner are not revised, there is every possibility of the transactions being treated as second inter -State sales eligible for exemption which involves loss of revenue thereby being prejudical to the interests of revenue. Therefore the orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction on such ground urged by the appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.