MANDAVA BALARAMA KRISHNAMURTHI PARTNER OF MANDAVA LAKSHMIPATI AND SON OIL CO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions a common question of law has been raised and argued. I shall take up W.P. No. 130 of 1959, as whatever decision is rendered therein would govern the other cases. W.P. No. 130 of 1959.-The petitioner is a resident of Narasaraopet. For the assessment year 1957-58, he submitted a return in Form A-3 showing a gross turnover of Rs. 1,13,044-2-9 and claimed exemption with respect to a sum of Rs. 1,12,934-5-9. The net turnover as disclosed by him was Rs. 109-13-6. By an order, dated 25th November, 1958, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Narasaraopet, determined the net turnover for the purpose of assessment at Rs. 51,875-7-6.

(2.) The petitioner is a manufacturer of and dealer in castor oil. The petitioner-firm purchases castor seeds and presses them into castor oil. It is alleged that the firm did exclusive business in such produce during the assessment year and it claimed, therefore, exemption in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 11 of G.O. No. 1091, Revenue, dated 10th June, 1957. The assessing authority found that upto 3Oth August, 1957, the petitioner manufactured oil on double presses and it was only from 31st August, 1957, that therewas a change over to single press. On that finding he held that for a period covered by 15th June, 1957 to 3oth August, 1957, the petitioner-firm was not entitled to the exemption claimed, as in that period the firm did not do exclusive business in oil manucfactured on single oil press as contemplated in Notification No. 11 aforesaid. But with respect to the period from 31st August, 1957 to 8th December, 1957, he allowed exemption on the sale of the castor oil. The petitioner-firm claimed that it was entitled to exemption from tax on the value of the purchase of castor seeds from out of which castor oil was extracted That claim was disallowed by the assessing authority on the ground that the concession granted in Notification No. 11 aforesaid does not extend to tax on the purchase value of the oil seeds and that the firm should pay tax on the first purchase of the castor seeds.

(3.) Against the orders of the assessing authority, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. It is the order of the assessing authority that is impugned in this petition and a writ of mandamus is prayed for restraining the Commercial Tax Officer from collecting the taxes with respect to the value of the purchase of the castor seeds. The only question debated before me is whether under the Notification No. 11 contained in G.O. No. 1091, dated 10th June, 1957, the petitioner is entitled to the exemption from paying tax on the purchase value of castor seeds. Notification No. 11 is in these terms :-