MADHU GRANITES Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the dealer M/s. Madhu Granites, Ongole aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner (CT)., Nellore dated 23.10.1997 in Revision No. 63/95 -96 revising the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer -I, Ongole for the year 1992 -93 under APGST Act vide order dated 17.6.1994 in G.I. No. 15768/92 -93 in exercise of his powers under Section 20(2) of APGST Act. The disputed turnover is Rs. 66,19,590/ - relating to the last sale of Granite in the State by the Appellant. The Commercial Tax Officer exempted the disputed turnover from tax holding that, appellant sold Granite covered by this turnover to registered dealers in the State and therefore he is not the last seller in the State liable to tax. As Granite is liable to tax at the point of last sale in the State, the CTO exempted the disputed turnover holding that the appellant is other than last seller in the State as he sold this Granite to registered dealers within the State.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner revised the assessment withdrawing the exemption on the disputed turnover granted by the CTO and levied tax thereon as per Entry 32 of First Schedule to APGST Act holding that, the Appellant failed to establish that he is not the last seller in the State. The Deputy Commissioner held that, in order to claim exemption as other than last sellers in the State, it is not enough that the dealer sells to other registered dealers within the State but, it should not be proved that the purchaser from the dealer also sold the goods to another registered dealer within the State and then only the burden lying on the dealer for claiming exemption gets discharged. He observed that in the present case, the Appellant sold rough granites to M/s. Nutrine Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd., Khammam, a registered dealer within the State but the appellant has not produced evidence to show that, this purchaser again sold the Granite to another registered dealer within the State and thereby the purchaser becoming the last seller and not the appellant. The Appellant filed before the Deputy Commissioner a copy of the assessment order of M/s. Nutrine Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd., Khammam and on a perusal of the same, the Deputy Commissioner pointed out that from this assessment order, it is evident that, the purchaser made consignment sale to other State to a tune of Rs. 12,57,100/ - from out of the purchases of Rs. 65,37,940/ - made from the appellant during the year 1992 -93 itself. The Deputy Commissioner further observed that, the appellant did not file any evidence for the balance stock and departmental enquiries revealed that the dealer effected sales of Granites by way of consignment sales and also export during 1993 -94. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner concluded that, since the purchasing dealer effected consignment sales to other State, the character of last sales within the State is acquired in the hands of the appellant only and not in the hands of purchasing dealers and the CTO erroneously granted exemption merely on the ground that the Appellant effected sales of Granite covered by the disputed turnover to registered dealers within the State.

(3.) HEARD arguments of both sides and perused the material on record. The point for consideration is whether revision made by the Deputy Commissioner withdrawing exemption on the disputed turnover is not proper and sustainable.