Decided on October 06,1993



Girija Jagannath, Member (A) - (1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of revision passed by DC (CT) Guntur in Rv. No. 22/88 -89, dated 30 -3 -1989, wherein he withdrew the exemption given on a turnover of Rs. 30,35,700/ - by the Commercial Tax Officer -II, Guntur in Assessment No. 10964/84 -85 dated 10 -2 -1986. The Appellant Company is a dealer in agricultural cotton seeds. The CTO granted exemption as per G.O.Ms. No. 604, dated 9 -4 -1981 on a turnover of Rs. 30,35,700/ - relating to cotton seeds sold to farmers for sowing purposes on the ground that they are truthfully labelled seeds.
(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner withdrew the exemption in its entirely on the ground that the exemption under G.O.Ms. No. 604, dated 9 -4 -1981 is not 'general' within the meaning of Section 8 of APGST Act and that in order to be eligible for exemption, it has to be established that the seeds were meant for agricultural purposes and were 'certified and truthfully labelled' Since the exemption was claimed and allowed without bringing on record whether these conditions were satisfied, the Deputy Commissioner proposed to withdrew the exemption. The assessee was given opportunity on two occasions to file his objections. But he sought further time on both occasions. As such, the revision orders were passed without the assessee filing objections. It is now to be considered whether the disputed turnover relating to cotton seeds of Rs. 30,35,700/ - was rightly subjected to tax holding it ineligible for exemption under the G.O.Ms. No. 604, dated 9 -4 -1981?
(3.) THE counsel for appellant argued that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have given sufficient opportunity before withdrawing exemption, and that it was enough if the seeds were 'truthfully labelled' to claim exemption under the said G.O. He pleaded that the seeds need not be both 'certified' and 'truthfully labelled' but even if one of the two conditions is satisfied, the turnover is qualified for exemption under the said G.O., In this connection he contended that the word 'and' used between certified' and 'truthfully' labelled' should be read as 'or' and that a different view may be taken from the view expressed earlier by this Tribunal in the case of Pinakini Seeds vs. State of A.P., ( : 6 APSTJ, 1988, 140). The State Representative argued that unless the seeds were both 'certified' and 'truthfully labelled', the exemption under the G.O., cannot be invoked. Therefore, according to the State Representative, the revision, was in order, and ought to be upheld.;

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