LAWS(ST)-2001-9-4

JAFFAR SAW MILL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On September 15, 2001
Jaffar Saw Mill Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order of Dy. Commissioner (CT), Karimnagar Division, dated 30.7.1998 in G.I. No. 16023/93 -94/RR. No. 7/98 -99 re -opening the final assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Jagtial by his order dated 12.12.97 in Asst. No. 16023/93 -94 for the year 1993 -94 under APGST Act and re -assessed the same in exercise of his powers U/s. 14(4)(C) of APGST Act. The appellants carried on business in Timber & Sizes. While making the assessment, the C.T.O., levied tax on the turnover of Rs. 48,217/ - relating to the sale of sizes and reapers @ 11.55% calculating at Rs. 5,569/ -. The C.T.O. granted set off of tax of Rs. 5,313/ - calculated on the purchase value of timber of Rs. 64,396.78 @ 8.25%. The C.T.O., further levied tax on the purchase turnover of round timber from private patta lands U/s. 6A on Rs. 3,69,725/ - @ 8.25%. The Dy. Commissioner found fault with the amount of set off on the ground that the turnover on which set off is calculated was more than the sale turnover which could not have been done. Accordingly, he withdrew the set off of tax allowed on the excess turnover of Rs. 16,180/ -. He also found fault with the levy of purchase tax on a turnover of Rs. 3,69,725/ - U/s. 6A of APGST Act stating that the dealer has sold the timber after cutting them into sizes and sold timber as intact and instead of assessing the sale turnover of such purchases the C.T.O., has assessed the purchase turnover. He added 25% gross profit to the purchase turnover of timber of Rs. 3,69,725/ - and arrived at the sale value of the timber at Rs. 4,62,156/ -. Thus, he arrived at the turnover of timber under -assessed at Rs. 92,431/ - and levied tax thereon at the rate of 8.25%.

(2.) HEARD arguments of both sides and considered the material on record.

(3.) THE point for consideration is whether the re -opening of assessment by the Dy. Commissioner and re -assessment U/s. 14(4)(C) of APGST Act is proper and justified?