RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAMKY ENGINEERS PVT LTD. Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS STATE REPRESENTATIVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue would arise for consideration in these revision cases filed under Section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act" for brevity). Therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. We may also mention that when TREVC.No. 92 of 2011 was listed before this Court, we were informed that the other case being TREVC.No. 50 of 2011 also involves the same question. Though cases are listed before this Court on 22.12.2011, the submissions are made by the counsel in the second case and none appeared for the petitioner in the first case.

(2.) For appreciation of the points for consideration, it is necessary to notice the facts in TREVC.No. 92 of 2011 (the background facts in the other revision are almost the same). The petitioner is an incorporated entity engaged in execution of the works contract. They are registered on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderabad (CTO), for the assessment year 2000-01. The CTO completed assessment on 28.02.2002. The taxable turnover was computed under Section 5G of the Act at Rs.90,71,616/-. The petitioner contended that tax has to be computed under Section 5F of the Act, which was not accepted. Assailing the assessment order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta Division, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed on 27.12.2002 relying on the decision of this Court in M/s.Media Communications v Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 105 STC 227 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s.Maycon Constructions Limited v State of Karnataka & Another, 111 STC 322. The Additional Commissioner (CT) (Legal), Hyderabad, in exercise of powers under Section 20(2) of the Act proposed to revise the appellate order on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. According to the revisional authority, a dealer, who obtains certificate in Form L-1 exercising option for composition of tax payable under Section 5F of the Act as per Section 5G of the Act cannot withdraw the option during the currency of L-l certificate. A show cause notice was issued and the petitioner filed objections. After considering the objections, the revisional authority confirmed the proposal duly directing the CTO to revise the assessment on the gross and net turn over of Rs.92,28,290/- at 4% under Section 5G of the Act.

(3.) The dealer then filed further appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Additional Commissioner is barred by Section 20(2)(a) of the Act; there was no prohibition in the Act enabling withdrawal of option of composition of tax under Section 5F of the Act; there are valid reasons for the petitioner to withdraw option for composition though the contracts executed by the petitioner during 2000-01 involve more labour component than the goods and therefore, the composition is not beneficial to the assessee. Learned Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/s. Venus Castings (P) Ltd, 2000 4 SCC 206 and dismissed the appeal observing that once a dealer elects for composition at the end of the assessment order, he cannot be permitted to back out on the ground that the composition is not beneficial to him.