- (1.) A common question arises for decision in both these tax revision cases, which, therefore, can be disposed of by a common order.
(2.) It would be sufficient if we state the facts in T.R.C. No. 27 of 1975. The petitioner is a rice miler at Machilipatnam, dealing in paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessing to the purchase of levy paddy by the petitioner net turnover of Rs. 1,33,396, pertaining to the purchase of levy paddy by the petitioner from the ryots. The said levy was payable under clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1967, and the petitioner was one of those nominated by the Government to receive, store and then deliver the said paddy, according to the instruction issued from time to tome.
(3.) The petitioner contended that the purchase of levy paddy is not liable to tax as the said purchase is made under compulsion and that, there is no element of "freedom of contract" or any choice in the matter or an agreement and that, therefore, they are not "sales" within the meaning of the Act. The said contention was, ultimately, overruled by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, against which the present tax revision case is preferred.;