PLYWOOD TRADERS Vs. STATE OF A.P. REP. BY THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act, for brevity) can be disposed of by common order as they not only arise out of one order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 13.02.2009 in T.A.Nos.147 of 2003 and 872 of 2004 but also relate to the same dealer.

(2.) The petitioner - a business firm in plywoods and general goods is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), N.S.Road, Hyderabad. For the assessment year 1995-1996 the firm was assessed allowing the rebate of Rs.2,44,961/- as per Section 5(3) read with entry 17 of the VI Schedule. The rebate was with reference to the tax paid by the dealer at the preceding point of sale on plywood. Be that as it is, the assessment was revised by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Charminar Division, Hyderabad reversing the rebate allowed by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the order of the revisional authority dated 12.10.2002, the petitioner filed T.A.No.147 of 2003, which was dismissed holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof of under Section 7-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, Tax Revision Case No.91 of 2011 is filed. The other Tax Revision Case is filed against T.A.No.872 of 2004 which relates to the assessment year 1998-1999 with similar factual background.

(3.) The counsel for petitioner would submit that plywood is exigible to sales tax at every point of sale as per VI Schedule and therefore, the tax has to be determined in accordance with Section 5(3) read with second proviso to Explanation II to the Act. He would challenge the adverse finding of the revisional authority against the petitioner that they have failed to disclose the closing stock and the opening stock as perverse. Secondly, he would submit that though the assessment was accepted, the revisional authority was in error in adding the turnover of Rs.5,57,623/- without putting the petitioner on notice. Per contra, the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes would submit that the petitioner never produced the bills covering the purchases he made from the selling dealer and in the absence of any such bills, it would not be possible to determine the tax as per the Explanation and therefore, the petitioner has to be assessed in accordance with the second proviso to VI Schedule. He also would sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal with reference to Section 7-A of the Act which requires the dealer to discharge the burden of proving that the sale or purchase effected by the dealer is not liable to tax or is liable to be taxed at the reduced rate.