JAIN TURMERICS Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed questioning the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kakinada in Appeal No. E 305/92 dated 20 -5 -1993 by which the orders of the assessing authority (Commercial Tax Officer, Rajahmundry) in Assessment No. 1259/91 -92 dated 7 -10 -1992 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders relating to the disputed turnover of Rs. 33,14,500/ -. The appellant is a dealer in 'turmeric' and during the assessment year 1991 -92 the assessing authority subjected the disputed turnover of Rs. 33,14,500/ - relating to purchases of turmeric from ryots to tax under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant preferred appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that he had acted as agent on behalf of non -resident principals in making such purchases from ryots and despatched the same to the principals outside the State of Andhra Pradesh and that such transactions amount to inter -State sales falling under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act and cannot be assessed under A.P.G.S.T. Act. The appellant also produced some documents before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and also cited the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh vs. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Areti & Others ( : 1992 -15 APSTJ 217) in support of his contention. In view of such circumstances the Appellate Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the assessing authority observing that the disputed transaction should come only under Sec. 3(a) of the CST Act and not under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. He then remanded the matter to the assessing authority stating that the assessing authority should examine the material filed by the appellant before him (Appellate Deputy Commissioner) in the light of the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court and grant exemption in respect of the purchases made from ryots on behalf of non -resident principals. The present appeal is filed questioning the said orders of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner contending that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner having observed that the disputed transactions should fall under Sec. 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act ought to have allowed the appeal and ought not to have remanded the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders and that such remand orders may be set aside. The State Representative appearing for the Department has however contended that the appellant filed additional material only before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and such material was not filed before the assessing authority at the time of passing of assessment orders and the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was therefore justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders after verifying the material filed before him by the appellant and that such orders passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner cannot be interfered with.

(2.) THE point for consideration in this appeal is whether the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority are not valid and legal and are liable to be set aside?

(3.) IT is no doubt true that the Appellate Deputy Commissioner has observed in his orders that in view of the documents filed before him and the judgment of the Supreme Court cited before him, the disputed transactions can be said to come under Sec. 3(a) of C.S.T. Act and not under APGST Act. But he has not discussed the contents of the documents filed by the appellant for the first time before him and the appeal orders do not indicate the reasons for which the Appellate Deputy Commissioner had to make such observations regarding the nature of the disputed transactions. Under such circumstances, it will be only just and proper that the assessing authority should verify such material and pass necessary orders on the basis of such material filed for the first time before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. Therefore the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the assessing authority for passing fresh orders after examining the material filed by the appellant cannot be interfered with.