LAKSHMINARAYANA TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1993-11-1
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 22,1993

Lakshminarayana Traders Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THESE four appeals are filed by the respective appellants questioning the common orders of the appellate Deputy Commissioner, by which the orders of the assessing authority subjecting the respective disputed turnovers relating to sales of jaggery to tax were confirmed. The particulars of the present appeals are as follows :
(2.) T .A. 352/90 and 459/90 are filed by one appellant by name M/s. Lakshminarayana Traders, Anakapalle while T.A. 460/90 & 353/90 are filed by another appellant M/s. Lakshminarayana Trading Corporation, Anakapalle. Both the appellants are assessees on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Anakapalle. They are dealers in 'jaggery' and acted as commission agents on behalf of ryot principals who bring jaggery to them for sales. During the assessment years 1985 -86 and 1986 -87 they effected sales of jaggery as agents of ryot principals and the disputed turnover in each case relates to such sales. The assessing authority subjected the disputed turnovers to tax in the hands of the appellants on the ground that they acted as commission agents of ryot principals and that such turnovers are exigible to tax in their hands as they are to be considered as 'dealers' as defined in the APGST Act. The assessing authority also found that the appellant will be liable to additional tax and surcharge on such turnovers. The appellants however filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner questioning such orders of the assessing authority contending that the disputed turnover cannot be assessed to tax in their hands as they neither purchased nor sold the jaggery, that additional tax cannot also be levied on such turnovers in their hands as the turnover of such ryot principals is less than Rs. 2 lakhs and that the orders of the assessing authority are therefore liable to be set aside in that regard. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, however, dismissed all the appeals and as such the present appeals are filed before this Tribunal. As the points involved for consideration in all the appeals are the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The points for consideration in the present appeals are - - (i) Whether the disputed turnovers relating to sales of jaggery are not exigible to tax in the hands of the appellants? (ii) Whether additional tax cannot be levied against the appellants relating to the disputed turnovers?
(3.) POINT No. 1: - The present appeals relate to the assessment year 1985 -86 and 1986 -87. Both the appellants are commission agents dealing in jaggery. Agriculturists bring jaggery to their premises and such jaggery is sola to various dealers through the appellants who act as their agents in effecting sales. The appellants did not dispute their liability to pay tax on such sales of jaggery effected by them as agents of ryot principals till 1 -7 -1985 when Section 11 of APGST Act was in force. Sec. 11 of APGST Act which was omitted w.e.f. 1 -7 -1985 was to the following effect: "Sec. 11. The liability of resident principal and his agent to pay tax. - -The tax or penalty due under this Act, in respect of a transaction of sale or purchase effected by any agent on behalf of a principal who is a resident of the State shall be assessed or levied and collected from the agent, in every case where such principals would be otherwise liable to such tax or penalty in respect of that transaction. Where the agent has paid the tax or penalty in respect of such transaction he may, without prejudice to his other rights to recover from his principal such tax or penalty, retain out of the moneys payable to the principal, a sum equal to the amount of tax or penalty so paid by him: Provided that the tax or penalty assessed or levied on, or due from, the agent, may be recovered by the assessing authority from the principal, instead of from the agent. Explanation: - -For the purposes of this section, the expression 'agent' shall have the meaning assigned to the expression 'dealer' in sub -clause (iv) of clause (e) of sub -section (1) of section 2". Such liability to pay tax regarding sales of jaggery effected by them as agents of resident principals was not disputed by the appellants till 1 -7 -1985 on account of the fact that Sec. 11 contemplated the levy and collection of tax from the agents in respect of sale or purchase effected by any agent on behalf of resident principal where such principal would be otherwise liable to such tax etc. But the appellants dispute the liability to pay tax during the assessment years 1985 -86 and 1986 -87 which are subsequent to the deletion of Sec. 11 by contending that they are not liable to pay any tax on such sales of jaggery effected by them as agents of resident ryot principals, who bring to them for such sales on account of the deletion of Sec. 11 which according to them had thrown on them such liability to pay the tax on such sales of Jaggery. But the lower authorities did not accept such contention of the appellants and subjected the disputed turnovers to tax in their hands on the grounds that they ate to be treated as 'dealers' as defined in Section 2(1)(e) as amended w.e.f. 1 -7 -1985 and that their liability to pay tax on such sales of jaggery cannot be excluded in view of such definition of 'dealer' contained in the Act and in view of the other relevant provisions of the APGST Act including the provisions of Sec. 5(2)(c) and the provisions of Fifth Schedule even though Sec. 11 was omitted from the Act. It is to be seen as to how for the respective contentions can be accepted in view of the relevant previsions of the Act and the facts and circumstances of the case.;


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