STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SRI SITHARAMANJANEYA RICE GROUNDNUT AND FLOUR MILL ANANDAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case is by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the assessing officer and of the first appellate authority and remanding the case for allowing rebate to the assessee under rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, (hereinafter called the Rules).

(2.) THE assessee, a manufacturer of groundnut oil registered under rule 18 of the Rules for the year 1955-56, was submitted his monthly returns and claiming rebates on purchases of groundnut as provided under sub-rule (2) of that rule. During the period of assessment on 11th February, 1956, the Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, recovered on a surprise inspection made by him some books of account disclosing clandestine transactions on a large scale, and consequently he rejected the turnovers for the months of April to September, 1955, and October to December, 1955, and best judgment turnover was determined. The rebate to which the assessee was entitled under rule 18 was also rejected. A sum of Rs. 3,47,242-7-0 was added by the assessing authority to the turnover disclosed by the assessee. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner maintained this order and assessed the assessee on a turnover of Rs. 9,26,023-8-3 levying a tax of Rs. 14,469-2-0. Before the Tribunal the assessee challenged the additional assessment as well as the disallowance of the rebate to which he was entitled under rule 18. With respect to the first point the Tribunal held that there was a clear suppression by the assessee and confirmed the assessment. In regard to the claim for rebate, it allowed the appeal and as already stated, remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal according to law.

(3.) THE conditions prescribed in rule 18 are that the assessee must have been registered as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake and every such manufacturer would then be entitled to a deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 5. Thirdly, under sub-rule (3) of rule 18, a manufacturer so registered must submit to the registering authority not later than the 25th of every month a statement in Form A-9 in relation to transactions relating to the previous month. If a manufacturer does not submit his statement in Form A-9 by the 25th of the month, the Commercial Tax Officer has been given discretion to condone the delay provided such a manufacturer has maintained a true and correct amount of his business showing all the particulars required by sub-rule (3). It is the proviso to sub-rule (3-A) that is sought to be pressed into service by the learned Government pleader as vesting a discretion in the Commercial Tax Officer to reject the rebate. In our view, however, that proviso is only concerned with the question of condoning the delay in submitting the return which submission is a condition precedent to the grant of rebate. In this case, it is not denied that the assessee has submitted the statement in Form A-9 within the time specified or that he is a registered dealer. These two essential conditions having been fulfilled, he would be entitled under sub-rule (2) to the rebate. There is nothing in sub-rule (2) which makes it subject to the condition that the manufacturer has submitted the statement in Form A-9 correctly, or to the effect that any suppression will disentitle a manufacturer to the rebate. Before a Full Bench of this Court in Sitharama Rice and Oil Mills v. The State of Andhra ([1956] 7 S.T.C. 635; A.I.R. 1957 A.P. 164.), it was sought to be aruged that the rebate can only be given for the period subsequent to the date of registration under sub-rule (1) of rule 18. But that contention was rejected on the ground that once a dealer has been registered as a manufacturer under sub-rule (1) of rule 18, he is entitled under the provisions of sub-rule (3) to present the application for the previous month, that is, the month even prior to the month of registration. The rule itself, it was observed, nowhere says that the deduction could be claimed only in respect of the period which is subsequent to the month of registration. This judgment would indicate that once the conditions prescribed in the rule are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to the rebate even if it is for a subsequent period. In our view, the assessee would be entitled to the rebate once he has fulfilled the conditions specified in rule 18, notwithstanding the fact that he was later found not to have maintained correct accounts or suppressed the turnover. In this view, the revision case is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100 (one hundred only). Petition dismissed.