Decided on November 16,1998



Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, Chairman - (1.) THESE two appeals are filed by one and the same appellant namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Secunderabad against two separate orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. T.A. 791/96 is preferred against the order dated 29.3.1996 in Appeal No. 79/95 -96 on the file of Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad partly allowing, partly dismissing and partly remanding for further assessment in the final assessment order dated 10.3.1995 in Asst. No. 4997/90 -91 (APGST) on the file of Commercial Tax Officer, Market Street Circle, Secunderabad. The disputed turnover in this appeal is Rs. 34,02,100.95. T.A. 792/96 is filed against order dated 29.3.1996 in Appeal Nos. 523 and 544/94 -95 on the file of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad confirming the two provisional assessment orders dated 30.12.1994 on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Market Circle, Secunderabad in G.I. No. 22/94 -95. The disputed turnover involved in the present appeal is Rs. 27,99,261/ - and Rs. 14,36,010/ -.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the two appeals are briefly as follows: The appellant is carrying on business of refining of crude petroleum and manufacturing, distribution and sale of various petroleum products and other allied products. For the assessment year 1990 -91, the appellant filed monthly returns under APGST Act before the assessing authority. After scrutiny of the monthly returns, the assessing authority issued a notice before final assessment to the appellant. After scrutiny and verification of the books of accounts produced by the appellant, the assessing authority issued another show cause notice inviting written objections against the proposals for final assessment made by the assessing authority. The appellant filed written objections and claimed various exemptions etc. Thereafter, the assessing authority passed the final assessment order dated 10.3.1995 in Asst. No. 4997/90 -91 (APGST). Total tax due was assessed as Rs. 79,42,83,691/ -. Aggrieved by that assessment order, the appellant preferred appeal in Appeal No. 79/95 -96 before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Secunderabad. It questioned the order of assessing authority regarding the reliefs not granted to the appellant by the assessing authority. Thereafter, on a consideration of the material available on record, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner granted some more further reliefs to the appellant in the taxation and remanded the assessment proceedings to the assessing authority to consider the G -Forms produced by the appellant and re -do the assessment after verifying the correctness of the 'G' forms produced by the appellant. Some of the reliefs asked for by the appellant were rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the rejection of some of the reliefs asked for by him, the appellant preferred the present appeal. In the present appeal, he raised grounds similar to the grounds raised by it before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and assessing authority for seeking the relief rejected by the appellate authority. The assessing authority issued two provisional asst. orders, one relating to the period April, 1994 to June, 1994 and another relating for the month of July, 1994 only. Turnovers relatable to sales of speciality oils effected by the appellant during the above months was taxed by the assessing authority provisionally treating the same as unclassified goods falling under the Seventh Schedule to the APGST Act. According to the appellant, speciality oils are to be treated as mineral oils falling under Item No. 98 of the First Schedule. The contention of the appellant was not accepted by the assessing authority. Therefore, he preferred two separate appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner disposed of both the appeals by common order dated 29.3.1996 concurring with the view of the assessing authority. Therefore, the appellant preferred the appeal in T.A. 792/96. In the other appeal also the question whether speciality oils are to be taxed under Item No. 98 of First Schedule or as unclassified goods covered by Seventh Schedule fall for consideration. Therefore, we proposed to dispose of both the appeals by a common order.
(3.) THE point that arises for determination in T.A. 791/96 is whether the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in so far as it related to rejection of reliefs claimed by the appellant is liable to be set -aside? The point that arises for consideration in T.A. 792/96 is whether speciality oils is to be taxed as per Item No. 98 of First Schedule of APGST Act as claimed by the appellant?;

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