LAXMI DURGA GRANITES LTD. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been preferred by the appellant herein challenging the revision orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Hyderabad Rural. The particulars of references and factual chronology are as stated thus.

(2.) M /s. Laxmi Durga Granites Ltd., Kothapet (for short, 'the appellant') are dealers in manufacture of Polished Granite Slabs. They are assessees on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar (for short, 'the assessing authority'). Their assessments for the years 1994 -95 and 1995 -96 under APGST Act, '57 (for short, 'the Act') were finalized on the dates reflected in Col. 3 of the table supra. It was discovered by the Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Hyderabad Rural (for short, 'the revisional authority') that the appellant purchased rough granites and utilized in the manufacture of Polished Granite Slabs. Since the granite stones are exigible to tax at the point of last sale under Entry 32 of First Schedule and Marble and Polished Stones are exigible to tax at the point of First Sale under Entries 43 and 92 of First Schedule of APGST Act, '57, the revisional authority came to the conclusion that Rough Granite Stones purchased by the appellant are exigible to tax at last sale point at anterior stage and under Section 6A of the Act any dealer who purchases goods from a registered dealers in circumstances in which no tax is payable consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods is liable to pay tax at the rate applicable under Section 5 or 6 of the Act. Hence, in exercise of revisional power under Section 20(2) of the Act, the revisional authority proposed to levy tax on the turnovers reflected in Col. 6 of the above table and accordingly issued pre -revision show cause notices calling for objections. The appellant urged by letters dated 02 -06 -2000 to allow one month time to file objections. The revisional authority however passed the impugned orders on the dates reflected in Col. 4 of the table supra on ground that no reply was filed. These revision orders trigger the controversy. Hence are these appeals before us.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing submitted that the appellant due to ill health could not file the objections and the details of purchases are available with the appellant. He submitted further that the appellant purchased Rough Granite from local source as well as from outside the State. He has filed Xerox copies of certain invoices showing outside source as well as local source. He urges to render justice. The learned State Representative on the other hand submitted that the appellant is burdened to proof its case in terms of Section 7A of the Act and as much as burden is not discharged, the appellant has no case in its favour.