SATYANARAYANA SRINIVAS BUNG Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these two writ petitions is M/s. Satyanarayana Srinivas Bung, which is a firm registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the "state Act" and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the "central Act". For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner was assessed to tax under the Central Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Nizamabad, by his order dated 27th February, 1965. The period for which the assessment relates to is 1st April, 1963, to 15th November, 1963. The petitioner claimed exemption from tax liability on the inter-State sales of paddy, turmeric and gunny bags contending that they were subject to tax at the purchase point under the State Act and therefore not liable to be taxed under the Central Act. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim for exemption. In respect of the period 16th November, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, similar exemption was claimed by the petitioner. But the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the same. The petitioner then preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, who allowed the exemption claimed in respect of the turnover relating to inter-State sales of paddy, turmeric and gunnies by his order dated 31st July, 1968. This exemption was allowed in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimiah Setty ([1965] 16 S. T. C. 231 (S. C.)), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the expression "levied" in section 9 (1) of the Central Act prior to amendment referred to the expression "levied" in section 5 (3) (a) of the State Act and, therefore, the Central Act had not made a departure in the manner of levy of tax on the specified goods which were taxed only at a single point under the State Act.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal Division, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under section 9 (2) of the Central Act issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 25th May, 1972, and 5th October, 1972, proposing to revise the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer in view of the amendment of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Amending Act 28 of 1969. The petitioner made its representations objecting to the revision of the assessments. By his orders dated 14th July, 1972, and 18th October, 1972, the Deputy Commissioner held that the Central Act was amended by Act 28 of 1969 and that section 9 of the amending Act validates the assessments, reassessments and other proceedings taken under the provisions of the principal Act before the commencement of the Amendment Act and that the original assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer was in order and, in that view, he set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nizamabad, subject to some modification with regard to the rate of tax in respect of the turnover of rice at 1 1/4 per cent instead of 2 per cent It is these orders that are now challenged in these writ petitions. The first contention of Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner and restore the original assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer. I am unable to comprehend this submission of the learned counsel. Under section 9 (2) of the Central Act read with section 20 (1) and (2) of the State Act, the Deputy Commissioner has suo motu powers to call for and examine the record of any order passed by any officer or authority subordinate to him and under section 20 (3) this power is exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner within four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer. The appellate orders were passed on 31st July, 1968, and 28th October, 1968, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the orders in revision were passed within four years from the dates of the orders in appeal passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the orders of the appellate authority.

(3.) IT is next contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that the Deputy Commissioner could not have revised the assessments as they are beyond four years from the date on which the original assessments were made. This submission is sought to be supported by a reference to rules 14-A (8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Rules framed under section 13 of the Central Act. But this contention is also devoid of merit. Here, the Deputy Commissioner is seeking to exercise the power of revision conferred on him by section 9 (2) of the Central Act read with section 20 of the State Act which power of revision he can exercise within four years from the date on which the order which was sought to be revised was served on the dealer. In the instant cases, the appellate orders of the Assistant Commissioner were made on 31st July, 1968, and 28th October, 1968, and the revisional orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 14th July, 1972, and 18th October, 1972, respectively. Therefore, there is no illegality in the exercise of the revisional power by the Deputy Commissioner.