SARASWATHI MEDICAL HALL Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) in CCT's Ref. L. III (1)/4960/87 dated 31 -8 -1988 by which the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad in Appeal No. 462/83 -84 dated 21 -2 -1985 were revised and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer, XI Circle, Hyderabad) for DE NOVO enquiry and disposal. The assessing authority in Assessment No. 2310/81 -82 (CST) dated 22 -9 -1983 had assessed the appellant to tax on a net turnover of Rs. 17,50,818/ - under the C.S.T. Act treating the said turnover as relating to inter -State sales of Medicines. The appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that he purchased the medicines from M/s. Indian Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad and sold the said medicines to dealers outside the State by endorsing the L.Rs. in favour of the outside the State purchases during the course of movement of the goods which were directly despatched by his seller to the outside State purchasers and that therefore the inter -State sales effected by him to the outside State purchasers amount to second inter -State sales eligible for exemption under section 6(2) of C.S.T. Act. He also filed 102 E -1 forms, 8 'C' forms and 5 'D' forms relating to the said transactions before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner received the said E -1. 'C' and 'D' forms and remitted the matter to the assessing authority to verify the said forms and pass orders afresh granting relief if the forms filed are otherwise in order. The Joint Commissioner took up the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in revision and set aside the same and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for DE NOVO disposal of the matter. The present appeal is filed questioning the said orders of the Joint Commissioner contending that the Joint Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and that such orders passed by him are also not valid and legal in view of the material on record and the same may therefore be set aside.

(2.) THE points for consideration in this appeal are -

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has also tried to contend that the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) cannot be said to have jurisdiction to revise the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner inasmuch as the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has merely remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh disposal and inasmuch as it cannot be said in view of such remand that there was any prejudice to the interests of revenue as contemplated in Sec. 20(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. But such contention cannot also be accepted. It is seen from a perusal of the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner that he has chosen to accept the E -1, 'C' and 'D' forms filed by the appellant and appears to treat the transactions as second inter -State sales eligible for exemption if such forms were found to be in order by the assessing authority after remand. But the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) has however observed in his orders that there is reasonable material to disbelieve the transactions as second inter -State sales in view of the particulars contained in the invoices and the L.Rs. etc., and that therefore the matter should be once again enquired into by the assessing authority afresh on the basis of the material by conducting DE NOVO enquiry and pass fresh orders. The assessing authority will therefore have the liberty to conduct DENOVO enquiry and pass fresh orders to decide whether the transactions are eligible for exemption under Sec. 6(2) or not. If the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner are not revised, there is every possibility of the transactions being treated as second inter -State sales eligible for exemption which involves loss of revenue thereby being prejudical to the interests of revenue. Therefore the orders of the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) cannot be said to be without jurisdiction on such ground urged by the appellant.