BAYYA PITCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1969-3-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 25,1969

BAYYA PITCHAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF AKNDHRA PRADESH V. VARRE POTHURAJU [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMR. OF AGRL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX QUILON V. DHANLAKSHMI VILAS CASHEW CO. QUILON [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS V. LOUIS DREFFUS AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M APPUKUTTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA IN ALL APPEALS STATE OF ORISSA IN ALL APPEALS STATE OF ORISSA IN ALL APPEALS VS. DEBAKI DEBI:HAZI ALI MAHAMMAD OSMAN:FAKIR CHOUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. K M CHARIA ABDULLA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. P M BATCHA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK OIL MILLS LIMITED VS. H B MUNSHI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MESSRS RAVURU NARASIMLOO [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VORION CHEMICALS AND DISTILLERIES LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2008-7-154] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Venkatesam, J. - (1.)This case has been referred to al Full Bench by Basi Reddy, J., and one of us (Sambasiva Rao, J.,) on the ground that the view of the Division Bench in State of Andhra Prades v. Varre Pothuraju, (1963) 2 ALT 201 = (1964) 15 STC 222 as to the scope and meaning of Section 14 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, vis--vis the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the said Act has cut down the amplitude of the powers of the revisional authority, although there are no restictive words in Section 20 of that Act, and that the decision therefore, requires re-consideration.
(2.)The relevant for a determination of the question referred to us are as follows:--The petitioner is an individual carrying on business in butter and ghee, and registered as a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (n0. 6 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the assessment year 1956-57, he reported a gross turnover of Rs. 1, 58,514-7-9 and a net turnover of Rs. 35,824-13-6, claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 122,689-13-0. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Gudivade, who was the assessing authority, checked the accounts for that year and found that the gross turnover was Rs. 1, 58, 524-12-0, and after allowing the exemptions to which he was entitled the taxable turnover as per his accounts was found to be Rs. 35,984-14-9. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer inspected the petitioners shops on 17-5-1956, and found that certain bills were not issued for cash and credit sales till the time of his inspection. He made a second inspection on 9-10-1956, and recovered some slips of paper. By his order dated 27 -3-1958, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer held that Ts. 1,500 had to be added to the turnover of October, 1956, for not accounting for the advances and other defects and Rs. 2,000 had to be added towards the estimated suppressions, but determined the net turnover of the dealer for 1956-57 at Ts. 37, 984-14-9, and assessed him to tax on the same. The Commercial Tax Officer, Masulimpatna, examined the accounts on 19-5-1959, and found that in fact Rs. 1,500 was not added to the turnover for the month of October, 1956, on account of suppression. He also found that as per the slips of paper and the Anamath Book recovered by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 9-10-1956 , the sales amounted to Rupees 1,574-5-6 during the period 1-10-1956 to 9-10-1956, while the cash and credit sales shown in the regular accounts amounted only to Rs. 579-0-3, and that during that period the proportion between the turnover in the regular accounts and the turnover suppressed was 1:3. For these reasons, he was of the opinion that the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer require revision, and issued notice of the proposed assessment. He declined to accept the explanation on behalf of the dealer, and assessed him to tax on further turnover of Rs. 71970.
(3.)Against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, an appeal was preferred to the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Guntur, who, by his order dated 28-3-62 refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal. Against that decision, an appeal was preferred to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, In T. A. No. 473 of 1962, and the Tribunal by its order dated 3/03/1964 dismissed the appeal, and upheld the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Against the order of the Tribunal the Revision petition has been preferred under Section 22 91) of the Act.
;


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