KALYANI ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT LIMITED GUNTAKAL KURNOOL DISTRICT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Special Appeals are directed against the common order dated 7.1.1995 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Proceedings No.L.III (3) /185/94-1 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.

(2.) The appellant-M/s.Kalyani Roller Eour Mills (P) Limited, Guntakal was finally assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Guntakal on gross and net turnover of Rs.3,00,47,065/- and Rs. 1,66,06,980/- respectively for the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs.2,54,57,027/- and Rs.57,32,829/- respectively for the assessment year 1991-92. The Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the first sale of wheat and wheat products and the sale of atta by the assessee.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kurnool. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner partly allowed the appeals. Against the orders of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Revision under Section 20(1) of the APGST Act (for short 'the Act') was filed before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The appellant-assessee filed written objections to the proposed revision and submitted that the exemption granted through G.O. Ms. No.377 applies to sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by Roller Flour Mills which are not of their own manufacture. The Commissioner examined the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner with reference to law and it was concluded that the interpretation of the G.O. Ms. No.377 dated 2.5.1991 is not in true sense of the said G.O. The Commissioner having regard to the background of the issuance of the G.O, which was issued on the basis of the representation made to the Government by the Millers Association, was of the view that the concession granted by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner was not justified inasmuch the Roller Flour Mills purchase the wheat from the Food Corporation of India and sell it to the consumers or dealers and that the exemption would not cover as long as the process of grinding is not undertaken by these appellants. While holding so, the concession granted was withdrawn and revisional orders were passed. It is this common order of the Commissioner is now challenged in these two appeals on various grounds.