JAIN TURMERICS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(ST)-1993-10-9
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 07,1993

Jain Turmerics Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Bayapu Reddy, Chairman - (1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kakinada in Appeal No. E 305/92 dated 20 -5 -1993 by which the orders of the assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry) in Assessment No. 1259/91 -92 dated 7 -10 -1992 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders relating to the disputed turnover of Rs. 33,14,500/ -. The appellant is a dealer in 'turmeric' and during the assessment year 1991 -92 the assessing authority subjected the disputed turnover of Rs. 33,14,500/ - relating to purchases of turmeric from ryots to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that he had acted as agent on behalf of non -resident principals in making such purchases from ryots and despatched the same to the principals outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and that such transactions amount to inter -State sales falling under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act and cannot be assessed under A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant also produced some documents before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and also cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh vs. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Areti & Others ( : 1992 -15 APSTJ 217) in support of his contention. In view of such circumstances the Appellate Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the assessing authority observing that the disputed transaction should come only under Sec. 3(a) of the CST Act and not under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. He then remanded the matter to the assessing authority stating that the assessing authority should examine the material filed by the appellant before him (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) in the light of the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court and grant exemption in respect of the purchases made from ryots on behalf of non -resident principals. The present appeal is filed questioning the said orders of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner having observed that the disputed transactions should fall under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act ought to have allowed the appeal and ought not to have remanded the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders and that such remand orders may be set aside. The State Representative appearing for the Department has however contended that the appellant filed additional material only before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and such material was not filed before the assessing authority at the time of passing of assessment orders and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was therefore justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders after verifying the material filed before him by the appellant and that such orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner cannot be interfered with.
(2.) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority are not valid and legal and are liable to be set aside? It is seen from the facts of this case that the appellant had purchased turmeric from the ryots and despatched the same to dealers outside the State. The disputed turnover relates to such purchases of turmeric made by the appellant. The assessing authority assessed such purchases of turmeric to tax as the appellant was considered as the first purchaser within the State. The appellant evidently did not produce any material before the assessing authority to prove his contention that he purchased the turmeric on behalf of non -resident principals and despatched the same to such principals outside the State and that such transactions amount to inter -State purchases falling under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act, and not exigible to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. In the absence of any such material produced by the appellant, the assessing authority treated the disputed turnover as relating to first purchase of turmeric in the hands of the appellant within the State and subjecting the same to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and then filed some documents in support of his contention that he purchased the turmeric on behalf of non -resident principals and despatched the goods outside the State. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in, 75 APSTJ 277 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. In view of such circumstances the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has observed in his orders that the transactions will have to be considered as falling under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act and not under A.P.G.S.T. Act. Having made such observation the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the assessing authority with the observation that the assessing authority shall examine the material filed by the appellant in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court cited before him and grant exemption in respect of the purchases of turmeric made from ryots on behalf of non -resident principals. The contention put forward by the Authorised Representative for the appellant during the course of arguments is that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, having observed that the transactions will fall under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act, ought to have allowed the appeal straight away and ought not to have remanded the matter to the assessing authority and that such remand order is therefore is not valid and legal and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the State: Representative appearing for the Department has contended that the material produced for the first time before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and which is available in the appeals does not establish the contention of the appellant regarding the nature of the disputed transactions, that the said documents are therefore of no use for such contention put forward by the appellant before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and that therefore it is just and proper that the assessing authority should verify such material filed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and pass necessary orders regarding the nature of the disputed transactions and that therefore the remand orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner cannot be set aside. He has also tried to contend that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has only made a casual observation on the factual position on the basis of the fresh material filed before him regarding the nature of the disputed transactions, that such observations are not in conformity with the contents of the documents filed before him and cannot be upheld and that therefore the remand orders passed by him enabling the assessing authority to verify the documents and pass fresh orders cannot be interfered with. It is therefore to be seen as to whether the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority can be interfered with in view of such circumstances surrounding the present case.
(3.) IT is no doubt true that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has observed in his orders that in view of the documents filed before him and the judgment of the Supreme Court cited before him, the disputed transactions can be said to come under Sec. 3(a) of C.S.T. Act and not under APGST Act. But he has not discussed the contents of the documents filed by the appellant for the first time before him and the appeal orders do not indicate the reasons for which the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had to make such observations regarding the nature of the disputed transactions. Under such circumstances, it will be only just and proper that the assessing authority should verify such material and pass necessary orders on the basis of such material filed for the first time before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Therefore the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders after examining the material filed by the appellant cannot be interfered with.;


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