MADDALI VEERAIAH SONS AND CO. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal in T.A. No. 148/99 is filed against the revisional order dated 21.12.98 in R.P. No. 6/96 -97 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. 1 Division, Vijayawada. The appeal in T.A. No. 675/99, is filed against the revisional order dated 6.5.'99 in R.P. No. 8/96 -97 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. 1 Division, Vijayawada. The appeal in T.A. No. 676/99 is filed against the revisional order dated 6.5.99 in R.P. No. 7/96 -97 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) No. 1 Division, Vijayawada. The appellant in T.A. No. 148/99 & 675/99 is one and the same. One appeal is in respect of the assessment year 1993 -94 and the other is for the assessment year 1994 -95. As far as the T.A. No. 675/09 is concerned the appellant is different. Though the appeal in T.A. No. 675/99 is different from the appellant in the other two appeals the issue involved is common. Hence, for the sake of convenience all these appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. The details of appeals are as follows.

(2.) SIMILARLY , in respect of another dealer M/s. Morisetty Venkateswara Rao and Company, the appellant in T.A. No. 675/99 the same Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment order on the ground that the first sales of green ginger was shown to have been sold at Rs. 323/ - per Bag whereas second sales of Ginger shown to have been sold at Rs. 394/ - per Bag and that the turnovers of the dealers are considered as incorrect and incomplete and therefore he proposed to best judgment assessment. The learned Deputy Commissioner considered it as reasonable to adopt the rate of green ginger at Rs. 394/ - for both first and second sales and proposed to add Rs. 9,11,190/ - to the book turnover of the dealer and to levy tax at 6% besides additional tax of 2% + surcharge. A showcause notice was issued for which the dealers filed objections stating that the turnover and average rate involved in the first sales of the Ginger are not comparable to that of the second sale as they lack similarity in all respects and that there was much transparency in the transactions and they are compelled to accept stocks for sale on consignment only and they never venture to involve themselves in purchase and sale transactions and that the green ginger available locally is different from that received from other States for sale and that the price is also more as it is available in small quantities and due to the prevailing demand at times and that on some occasions due to deterioration in quality and lack of demand during those days the actual sales amount falls short. The learned Deputy Commissioner rejected those objections on the same grounds on which the objections raised in respect of the appellants in the other two appeals were rejected. The Deputy Commissioner directed the appellant in this appeal to pay additional tax of Rs. 78,805/ -.

(3.) THE appellant in T.A. No. 675/99 also challenged the revision order almost on the same grounds which the appellants in other two appeals pleaded. The appellant further pleaded that there are second sales mainly during three months i.e., July, August and September, 1994 and during those there months, the receipt of stocks from the non -resident principals fell down and on account of the less receipt of stocks from the non -resident principals, there was increase in the 2nd sales and there were no second sales or very negligible when compared to the first sales and therefore comparison of the yearly average cannot reflect any correctness and that the non -resident principals are mainly agriculturists and therefore on behalf of such agriculturist and such sales are not taxable as they are first sales and hence the entire assessment on first sales are liable to be quashed along with the revision orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants prayed for allowing the appeals and to set -aside the impugned revision orders.