SRI LAXMI VENKATARAMANA TRADING CO. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SALES TAX TRIBUNAL
Sri Laxmi Venkataramana Trading Co.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
A. Narasimha Rao, Member (D) -
(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by M/s. Sri Laxmi Venkata Ramana Trading Company, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division, Hyderabad, dated 2.2.1994 in R.R. No. 15/91 revising the assessment orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Osmangunj Circle, Hyderabad in GI No. 3972/85 -86, dated 16.2.1990. The disputed turnover is Rs. 4,55,581 -00. The appellant is a dealer in chillies, turmeric, tamarind etc. So far as the facts relating to the disputed turnover is concerned, the appellant purchased tamarind within the State and outside the State and sold. The appellant also sold tamarind on behalf of resident principals and non -resident principals. But the assessing authority observed that on verification of books of accounts of the appellant produced at the time of assessment it was found that it had collected sales tax, on sales of tamarind which was sold by it during the year 1985 -86 on behalf of agriculturist principles amounting to Rs. 4,55,581.00. As per Section 30(b) of the APGST Act 1957 an amount not specified was proposed to be forfeited in favour of the government and added to the gross and net turnovers of the appellant. Though he proposed to add the amount of Rs. 4,55,581.00 no such amount was found to have been added to the gross and net turnovers. Therefore the revising authority revised the assessment adding an amount of Rs. 4,55,581.00 to the gross and net turnovers of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
(2.) THE point for consideration is whether the revising authority was not justified in adding this amount to the gross and net turnovers of the appellant. Tamarind was liable to tax at the point of purchase during the year 1985 -86 with effect from 1.8.1986 tamarind is liable to tax at the point of first sale in the State when obtained from the outside the State and at the point of first purchase in the State when purchased within the State. The assessment was made on 16.2.1990 when the amended provisions were in force. It appears that the assessing authority levied tax on the sale of tamarind on behalf of resident principals and on behalf of non -resident principals and also purchased form outside the State. Though it was stated in the assessment order that the appellant collected sales tax on the sales of tamarind on behalf of the agriculturist principals and the amount of tax was liable to be forfeited in favour of the Government, the assessing authority did not forfeit the amount because as stated by the Authorised Representative, the three year period of limitation under Section 30C from the date of collection of the amount expired even before the assessment was taken -up. Therefore, the assessing authority proposed to add the sale value to the gross turnover of the appellant. The revising authority was guided by the particular para in the assessment order in which the assessing authority proposed to add the amount of Rs. 4,55,581.00 to the gross and net turnovers of the appellant and found that the amount was not added. He revised the assessment but ignored the fact that an amount of Rs. 55,32,480.00 relating to tamarind was assessed to tax. Of this an amount of Rs. 50,50,354.00 related to sales of tamarind made on behalf of resident principals and non -resident principals Rs. 4,80,083 -00 related to purchase of tamarind outside State and sold within the State, and Rs. 2,043.00 related to sales of tamarind seed on behalf of resident principals liable to tax at the point of purchase. Thus though tamarind was liable to tax at the point of purchase the assessing authority made assessment on the sales of tamarind. The amount of Rs. 55,32,480.00 included an amount of Rs. 4,55,581.00 which the assessing authority proposed to add to the gross and net turnovers while in fact they were already added in the gross and net turnovers. Apparently the revising authority had not gone into the above facts. We are not going to give any opinion as to whether sale of tamarind was or was not rightly assessed to tax while purchase of tamarind would be liable to tax at the relevant assessment year because that such question was not before us. We only say that the disputed turnover Rs. 4,55,581.00 which the revising authority added to the gross and net turnover of the appellant were already part of gross and net turnovers of the appellant in the assessment. Further goods liable to tax at the point of purchase cannot be levied tax at the point of sale because the assessing authority proposed to add the sale value to the book turnover but ultimately omitted to do so. The revising authority cannot revise the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority did not add the sale value of goods liable to tax at the point of purchase. Therefore the revision adding the disputed turnover in the assessment is not justifiable. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned revision orders are set aside and the assessment orders are restored.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, pronounced in the Open Court on this the 4th day of May, 1998.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.