GULSHAN TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the revisional order of the Additional Commissioner (CT), Hyderabad, dated 05.05.2005 in CCT's. Ref. L. III(2)/1018/2003. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant's turnover was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad, originally under Entry 19 of I Schedule @ 4%. Later upon noticing some discrepancy, the C.T.O., reassessed the dealers by classifying their goods under Entry 137 of I Schedule at 16%. The relevant assessment year is 1999 -2000. Aggrieved by the revised assessment order of the C.T.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Punjagutta Division. In his order dated 31.05.2001, the A.D.C. allowed the appeal on the ground that there is no fresh material dehors the assessment record to enable the assessing authority to revise the original assessment. This order of the A.D.C., was revised by the Additional Commissioner (CT)., who sought to classify the turnover of the appellant pertaining to the commodity 'containers' under Entry 152 of the I Schedule. It is the contention of the appellant that no enquiry was made by the C.T.O., at the time of re -assessment and no material dehors the record was examined and yet the C.T.O., re -assessed their turnover pertaining to containers under Entry 137 of I Schedule as these were battery containers and not simple containers. It is the contention of the appellant that it was wrong on the part of the C.T.O., to so re -assess or change his opinion without any provocation and that the A.D.C., was right in allowing their appeal. They have further contended that the Additional Commissioner (CT)(Legal) also is wrong in trying to revise the order of the A.D.C., without any further or fresh enquiry and without any fresh material dehors the record. The appellant has relied on the case laws reported in : 95 STC 208, 97 STC 442, 133 STC 14 and 133 STC 147.

(2.) THE learned State Representative has supported the orders of the Additional Commissioner and has stated that in their assessment record, the appellant had mentioned battery containers only as 'container' and thus mislead the assessing authority. Since, there is a specific entry 137 in I Schedule for 'battery containers' the same will take precedence over general entry 19 of the I Schedule. The learned S.R. relied on the case laws reported in : 23 APSTJ 63 and 140 STC 17. We have examined the three entries around which the dispute revolves. Relevant portion of Entry 19 of the I Schedule reads as follows: