Decided on January 16,1998

Sri Balaji Enterprises Appellant


M.Ramakrishna, Chairman - (1.) T .As. 107/95, 108/95 & 109/95 are the appeals preferred against the common orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool filed against the reassessment orders passed by the C.T.O., Cuddapah. Since the issue involved is one and the same, for the sake of convenience they are heard together and are disposed off by this common order. The particulars of the appeals are as follows: The facts that gave rise to the filing of the present three appeals in brief are that the C.T.O., Cuddapah in his Revision proceedings in GI Nos. 8863/83 -84, dated 2.1.1989 for the years 1984 -85, 1985 -86 & 1986 -87 assessed the turnovers of 'rasna' as general goods. All the appeals were dismissed. The appellant went in appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool, who confirmed the re -assessment orders, observing that the C.T.O. has made the reassessment which is in accordance with Section 14(4)(c) of the APGST Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred these appeals before us. T.A. No. 110/95 is appeal filed against orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Dated 2.8.1994 in appeal No. 159/88 -89 (Chittoor) filed against the asst. order of D.C.T.O. No. I, Cuddapah in GI No. 14243/87 -88, dated 29.8.88. The disputed turnover is Rs. 81918/ -.
(2.) REITERATING the contentions urged before the first appellate authority, relating to the assessment years 1984 -85, 1985 -86 & 1986 -87 it is contended by the learned Authorised Representative for the appellants that at the time of making the original assessments, it was admitted and accepted that purchase of Rasna made from M/s. Vijaya Distributors, Secunderabad as Scheduled goods falling under Item 108 of Schedule -I to the APGST Act not liable to tax at their hands, being a second seller. In his reassessment proceedings, the C.T.O., Cuddapah decided now as general goods liable to tax at the hands of the appellants at every point of sale. It is contended by the learned Authorised Representative that the reassessment orders of the C.T.O., are without jurisdiction and the C.T.O. has no material, dehors the assessment record for making reassessment and that being so, the reassessment is unwarranted. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the following decisions: 75 STC 82 (State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Ratna Sree Box Makers) 97 STC 442 (Giridharilal & Company vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) On the other hand the Additional State Representative has relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities.
(3.) THE point for consideration is whether the reassessment proceedings in T.A. Nos. 107/95, 108/95 & 109/95 are not sustainable?;

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