A. RAVINDER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the dealer M/s. A. Ravinder and D. Rambabu, Commission Agents and General Merchants, Suryapet, aggrieved by the order of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal), A.P. Hyderabad, dated 2.5.97 in CCT's Ref. L. III(20/1762/96) revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad, dated 2.7.93 in Appeal No. A/342/92 -93 and setting aside the same and restoring the order of Commercial Tax Officer, Suryapet, dated 28.6.91 in Asst. No. 12226/87 -88. The appellants are dealers in Groundnut, Greengram, Redgram and Blackgram etc., and are assessees on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Suryapet and they are finally assessed under APGST Act for the year 1987 -88 by the Commercial Tax Officer. While finalising the assessment, the C.T.O., considered exemption claimed by the dealer on the purchase of groundnut on a turnover of Rs. 1,04,08,076/ - on the ground that they are not the last purchasers in the State, as groundnut is exigible to Tax at the point of last purchase in the State. Out of this turnover, the C.T.O., disallowed the claim of exemption on a turnover of Rs. 8,58,981/ - stating that this turnover represents the sales made to M/s. Vinayaka Traders, Deverkonda and he is disallowing the claim of exemption on this turnover on the basis of the verification report by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nalgonda, APX. II/1/89 -90, dated 4.5.89.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, the dealer preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad. The ADC., observed that he has gone through the assessment order and found that the assessing authority stated that the C.T.O., Nalgonda sent the report about the transactions of sale made by the appellant to M/s. Vinayaka Traders, Deverkonda and there is no clear finding in the assessment order against the transactions with M/s. Vinayaka Traders, Deverkonda and therefore he considered necessary that the assessing authority should examine the issue afresh and give a clear finding based on the evidence placed by the appellants after hearing the appellants. Accordingly, he remanded the proceedings to the Commercial Tax Officer.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the revision made by the Joint Commissioner, the dealer preferred this appeal pleading that in pursuance of direction given by the A.D.C., the C.T.O., Suryapet who is the assessing authority passed fresh orders dated 30.7.93 after denovo examination of the matter and allowed exemption on the disputed turnover of Rs. 8,83,993/ - observing that the sales covered by this turnover are effected to registered dealers of A.P. State basing on the affidavit filed which was obtained from the other registered dealers in the State who purchased groundnut from the appellants. The revision orders of Joint Commissioner are challenged on the ground that the same is not clear and no case has been made out to say that the orders passed by the ADC are prejudicial to the interests of revenue requiring revision U/s. 20(2) of APGST Act without which the impugned orders passed by Joint Commissioner are not sustainable in the eye of law. It is pleaded that the revisional authority observed that since the assessing authority made discreet enquiries, the explanation of the assessee is not convincing and this observation did not make out any case warranting revision. It is pleaded that the enquiries even if any made are behind the back of the appellants and they cannot be taken as basis for disallowing the legitimate claim of exemption unless they are put to the appellants for rebuttal.