VARALAKSHMI JAGGERY MERCHANTS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Varalakshmi Jaggery Merchants
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
M.Ramakrishna, Chairman -
(1.) THESE three appeals have been filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur -II Division, revising the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Narasaraopet. Though the appellants are different, the issue involved is common. Hence for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are heard together and are disposed off by this common order. The details of the appeals are as follows:
(2.) THE appellants are dealers in jaggery. They purchased jaggery both within the State and outside the State. They purchased jaggery in lumps, baskets and bags. Assessments were made on the basis of turnovers recorded in the books of account of the respective appellants. The revising authority observed in respect of some jaggery purchased from outside the State that the sale value recorded was less than the purchase value. He therefore added profit to the purchase value, arrived at the sale value and revised the assessment of each appellant by bringing such sale value to tax. Hence this appeal. It is contended by the learned authorised representative for the appellants, who is appearing in all the three appeals that in the absence of suppression of purchases and sales, the assessing authority cannot make assessments on the basis that profit margin shown by him was low and poor. He relied on the decision of this Tribunal in Ayyappa Jaggery Merchants, Narsaraopet and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, T.A. No. 913/96 and batch dated 8.12.1997. In that order, this Tribunal has made the following observations:
It is no doubt true that the Deputy Commissioner who passed the impugned orders is entitled to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short Act), but unless he got some other material which was available in the assessment records not noticed by the assessing authority or he got any information he cannot merely invoke the revisional jurisdiction and pass the impugned orders on the ground that the dealers in these cases have want only shown the sale of jaggery purchased from outside the State at a lesser rate than the rate on which the said items were purchased by these dealers. Further the learned State Representative has not brought to our notice about any other information or material, which came to the notice of the revisional authority to justify invoking the revisional powers.
Further, in view of the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, mere showing low profit margin or in these cases, selling at a loss in the absence of any other material cannot be sustained because it virtually amounts to exercising the revisional jurisdiction on mere surmises. In that view of the matter, we hold that the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Guntur -II Division, Guntur cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. Hence, the point is answered in the affirmative.
(3.) THE above observations squarely apply to the impugned orders in these appeals, as the facts being similar and identical. Therefore, we hold in these appeals also that the revisional orders of the Dy. Commissioner (CT), Guntur -II Division, Guntur cannot be sustained. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed and the revisional orders are set -aside and the orders of the assessing authority are restored.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and pronounced in the Open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 1998.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.