SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. -
(1.)TWO questions are urged in these tax revision cases which arise out of same set of facts.
(2.)THE first contention of Shri P. Srinivasa Reddi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order of reassessment passed by the assessing authority on September 29, 1981, is barred by limitation in view of the provision of section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. To appreciate this contention it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessing authority passed an order of assessment on January 31, 1978. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the directions contained therein, on May 11, 1978. The said order of the appellate authority was received by the Commercial Tax Officer on September 21, 1978. However, the assessee filed a second appeal, T. A. No. 67 of 1979, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order of remand was also subject-matter of determination by the Tribunal. By its order dated August 22, 1980, the Tribunal upheld the order of remand passed by the first appellate authority-Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer passed the order of reassessment on September 29, 1981. This is the order which is said to be beyond limitation. Section 24-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act provides, as follows : "where an assessment, reassessment, rectification in or revision of an assessment is made in respect of an assessee or any person, in pursuance or in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 19, section 20, section 21, section 22 or section 23 or in an order of any court in a proceeding, otherwise than by way of appeal or revision under this Act, such assessment, reassessment rectification in or revision of an assessment shall be made within three years from the date of receipt of such order by the assessing or revising authority as the case may be. "
The order of the first appellate authority dated May 11, 1978, has merged in the order of the Tribunal dated August 22, 1980. From that date the order of reassessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on September 29, 1981, is within the limitation. However, Shri P. Srinivasa Reddi contends that the limitation should be counted from September 21, 1978, when the copy of the order of the first appellate authority was received by the Commercial Tax Officer and if that date is taken into consideration the Commercial Tax Officer ought to have passed the order on the reassessment on or before September 20, 1981. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal rejected this contention. We also do not find any force in this contention. The Tribunal upheld the order of remand passed by the first appellate authority. As observed above, that order has merged in the order of the Tribunal. Pursuant to that order the Commercial Tax Officer gets a period of three years for passing the order of reassessment.
(3.)THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in all these four cases the Tribunal has remanded the cases to the Commercial Tax Officer for fresh enquiry on the question whether the transactions with regard to the disputed turnover were inter-State trade or stock transfer to the branch offices of the assessee. Shri P. Srinivasa Reddi contends that there was no justification for the Tribunal to direct remand in respect of certain part of the turnover and decide finally with reference to other part of turnover. We have perused the order of the Tribunal under revision. In paras 20 and 21, the Tribunal has considered this aspect at length. The Tribunal divided the turnover into two categories, the first category relates to the transfer of goods to the places where the assessee has admittedly branch offices. In regard to that the Tribunal found that the assessing officer has not considered the material on record and no attempt was made to correlate the statement and the document referred to by the assessee with reference to each transaction and, therefore, directed remand. The turnover relating to places where, admittedly, there are no branch offices of the assessee was considered as the second category. The case of the assessee was that there were "hundekars" of the assessee to whom the transfer was made. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to support the contention of the assessee and that the purchasers indicated that the R. Rs. were transferred in their names and they took delivery at the railway station from the "hundekars", bearing the entire charges of "hundekars" and transport therefrom. In fact, the finding is that the "hundekars" acted on behalf of the purchasers but not on behalf of the assessee. On this finding, in our view the Tribunal was justified in not remanding the items of the turnover relating to such sales. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, warranting interference by this Court under revision. These tax revision cases are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.