KRISHNA COCONUT CO Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
LAWS(APH)-1971-10-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 11,1971

KRISHNA COCONUT CO.,A.L.NARASIMHAM AMBAJIPETA Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alladi Kuppuswami, J. - (1.) The petitioner in W.P. No 3054 of 1971 and 3055 of 1971 is Sri Krishna Coconut Company, a firm represented by its partner, A.L. Narasimham. The petitioner was served with notices to pay the Central sales tax of Rs. 30,497-88 due on the turnover for the months of January, February and March, 1971 and Rs. 21,714-55 for the months of April and May, 1971. He has filed Writ Petitions Nos. 3055 of 1971 and 3054 of 1971 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondent, namely, Commercial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, for enforcing the said notice in respect of the period January to March, 1971 and the notice for the period April and May, 1971 respectively.
(2.) The Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 3076 of 1971 and 3077 of 1971 is a firm, Yenduri Ramarao & Son, represented by its partner, Viswanatham. They received a notice for payment of Central sales tax of Rs. 5,017-39 for the period January to March, 1971, and Rs. 5,552-71 for the period April to June, 1971 and the two writ petitions are filed for the issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from enforcing the said notices. The contentions raised in all the writ petitions are identical and therefore, the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(3.) The petitioners are dealers in coconut. They purchase coconuts within the State and export them to places outside the State. Under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (in this judgment referred to as the State Act) the sales tax is payable by a dealerat 3 per cent, on the turnover at the point of the last purchase in regard to coconuts. The petitioners have opted for assessment under rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules made under the State Act and have been submitting monthly returns in Form A-2 prescribed by the rules and have been paying tax every month on the turnover shown in those returns. In regard to sales made by them in the course of inter-State trade they are liable to pay Central sales tax, but under section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act (in this judgment referred to as the Central Act) read with section 6 proviso of the State Act where a tax has been levied under the State Act in respect of the sale or purchase inside the State of any declared goods and such goods are' sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the tax so levied shall be refunded to such person in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be provided in any law in force in that State. Coconut is one of the declared goods. The petitioners, therefore, applied for refund of the tax paid under the State Act on the ground that they had sold the coconuts in the course of inter-State trade. The contention of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that until and unless those applications for refund are considered and disposed of, they cannot be called upon to pay the Central sales tax. Hence they have prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from collecting the Central sales tax until their application for refund of the State tax paid by them are disposed of. They say that if the applications for refund are considered earlier, instead of ordering refund of the tax, the tax paid may be adjusted as against the tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act, the two taxes being of identical amounts at 3 per cent.;


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