ALLEN HOMEO AND HERBAL PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are preferred by the same appellant contesting the revision orders dated 09 -04 -2007 passed by Additional Commissioner (CT)., Legal., Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad. Following is an overview of the facts involved in filing of these appeals. M/s. Allen Homeo & Herbal Products Ltd., Saidabad, Hyderabad (for short, 'the appellant') is a manufacturer or Homeo medicines. Its final assessment for the year 2000 -01 and provisional assessments for the year 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 were done by Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle (for short, 'the assessing officer') under CST Act, '56. The basis for the assessment is the report of the inspection conducted by Commercial Tax Officer, Afzalgunj Circle on 16 -08 -2002 who noticed the appellant is allowing discounts in the invoices relatable to branch transfers and sending these invoices through bankers and discounting the same. The Assessing Officer assessed the transactions treating them as inter -State sales. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeals before Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Panjagutta (for short, 'the appellate authority') who by a common order dated 26 -04 -2003 allowed the appeal connected to the assessment 2000 -01 after verification of Lorry Receipts and consignment invoices and remanded appeals connected to provisional assessments for the years 2001 -02 and 2002 -03 for verification of correctness of the statutory forms filed and further evidence the appellant may file. However, Additional Commissioner (CT)., Legal., revised the assessment orders under Section 20(2) of APGST Act, '57 (for short, 'the Act'). Against these, present appeals are preferred.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel on each side. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the appellate authority passed common order dated 26 -04 -2003. It was served on the appellant on 11 -05 -2007. The revisional orders purportedly made on 09 -04 -2007 were served on the appellant on 26 -06 -2007 with an unexplained delay of 78 days and therefore the impugned orders were not passed on the purported dates but passed subsequently and antedated as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Ramakistaiah & Co.,, 93 STC 406, A.P. High Court's decision in the case of M/s. Sanka Agencies v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, : 142 STC 496 and this Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Sri Laxmi Srinivasa Groundnut Traders,, 29 APSTJ 235 which was upheld by the High Court.

(3.) THE points that fall for adjudication therefore are as follows: