SWASTIC OLEACHEMS LTD HYDERABAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS STATE REP BEFORE THE SALES TAX APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under both the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the APGST Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act) on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Special Commodities Circle, Hyderabad (CTO), is engaged in the manufacture and sale of steric acid vanaspati. They were sanctioned industrial incentive (Sales Tax deferment) to the extent of Rs. 14,95,62,130/-. For the assessment year 2001-2002, the CTO completed the assessment under both the Acts in March, 2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Punjagutta (ADC). The two separate appeals were rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement of the law. The dealer then filed further appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The two appeals being T.A. No. 361 of 2007 in relation the assessment under the APGST Act and T.A. No. 362 of 2007 relating to the assessment under the CST Act were dismissed by two separate orders on 16.3.2011. T. Rev. C. No. 72 of 2011 is filed against T.A. No. 361 of 2007 and T. Rev. C. No. 88 of 2011 is filed against T.A. No. 362 of 2007. The brief background facts leading to filing of these two revision cases is as follows. For the assessment year 2001-2002, the dealer filed returns. They submitted certificate of Chartered Accountant in Form XXXVI and Statement in Form XXXVII under Rule 17(5A) of the APGST Rules, 1957 along with necessary statements. As per the orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 354, dated 29.5.2001 in the usual course the assessing authority has to accept the turnover furnished in the statements as certified by the Chartered Accountant. The CTO found the statements in Form AR-I, AR-II, AR-III and AR-IV are not correct and revealed irregularities and omissions. Therefore a show cause notice was issued to the dealer who then filed objections along with G-Forms, C-Forms and statements. After considering the objections and verifying the records the assessment, was completed duly determining the incentive availed as well as the balance deferment to be availed vide proceedings dated 21.3.2005 regarding APGST and proceedings dated 30.3.2005 regarding CST.

(2.) The dealer filed two appeals on 12.7.2005 under Section 39(1) of the APGST Act. They did not, however, enclose the proof of payment of 12.5% of disputed tax as required under the second proviso to Section 19(1) of the said Act. The ADC, therefore, issued a check memo which was served on the authorized representative of the dealer on 15.7.2005. Even after expiry of about 7 months, the dealer did not produce proof of payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. Therefore the appeals were rejected on 15.2.2006. As noticed supra, the dealer unsuccessfully filed appeals under Section 21(1) of the APGST Act before the STAT.

(3.) The Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the STAT was not justified in holding that the petitioner committed default in complying with the second proviso to Section 19(1) of the APGST Act when the petitioner under the relevant proceedings of the Commissionerate of Industries sanctioning incentive (Sales Tax deferment) is deemed to have made the payment of entire tax. Nextly it is contended that the second proviso to Section 19(1) of the APGST Act having been inserted by the A.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 with effect from 30.11.2001 cannot be made applicable in respect of an appeal before the ADC/STAT relating to a sales tax dispute prior to 30.11.2001.