VIJAYADURGA OIL MERCHANTS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in groundnut oil and is registered under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act, for short). For the assessment year 1982-83, the Commercial Tax Officer, by his order dated 11-4-1994 completed the assessment determining the net turnover of Rs. 6,80,170/- which included an estimated turnover of Rs. 6,21,600.00. On 21-2-1983, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer inspected the premises of the petitioner and noticed excess stock of 25 barrels of groundnut oil worth Rs. 56,500.00 which is not supported by purchase bills or way bills and not accounted for in the books of account by the time of inspection. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Deputy Commissioner questioning the estimated suppression added by the assessing authority at 10 times of the actual suppression. The appellate Deputy Commissioner came to the opinion that the estimated suppression 10 times of the actual suppression relates to turnover of Rs. 6,21,600/- and out of such estimated suppression there was justification for only one time addition to the tune of Rs. 56,475/- and 10 times addition is unjustified. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal in part relating to turnover of Rs. 5,56,125/- and dismissed the appeal regarding the estimated turnover of Rs. 56,475/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for short) in T.A.No. 365 of 1985 questioning the order of the appellate Deputy Commissioner as regards dismissal of his appeal relating to turnover of Rs. 56,475.00 i.e., one time addition. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by its order dated 12-8-1988. There afterwards, the Joint Commissioner, CT, Legal, in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 20 of the Act revised the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner holding that the estimation of the suppressed Turnover of Rs. 5,65,125.00 is valid and justified. Against that order of the Joint Commissioner, the petitioner preferred T.A. No. 797 of 1989 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-9-1993 dismissed the appeal. Hence this T.R.C. under Section 22 (1) of the Act.

(2.) In this T.R.C. the following questions of law are said to arise for decision:

(3.) Mr. S. Dwarakanath Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that with the dismissal of T.A.No. 365 of 1985 by the Tribunal, the order made by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner merged with the order and, therefore, it is totally impermissible for the Joint Commissioner, CT, Legal, to revise the order in exercise of the purported power under Section 20 of the Act, particularly having due regard to the bar contained in sub-section (2-A) of that Section. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel would place reliance on Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh vs. Manilal Manikji Pvt. Ltd. Krishna Rice and Oil Mills vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, and Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Limited vs. State of Maharashtra. Sub-section (2-A) of Section 20 reads: