STATE OF A P Vs. VRAJILAL CHAMPAHI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. 383 of 1958 arises out of O. S. No. 15/50 and Tr. Appeal No. 381/61 arises out of O.S.No.26/49. As common questions were involved in both these appeals they were heard together. It was fairly conceded and in my view rightly, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Provincial Government of Madras vs. J .S. Basappa a Composite assessment order where certain items of assessment are bad while others ara good, is bad in kw and that therefore the judgment of the Court below on that account cannot be attacked. This question would arise only when I agree on the question whether all the items of sales assessed to the (tax took place inside the State as was alleged by the State. The trial Court ift both these cases has found on evidence that out of the four categories of transactions two categories of transactions showed that the sales took place within the State, and those transactions therefore were amenable to asssessment. It was found on evidence that the remaining two categories were not available for assessment of tax because there the sales had taken place outside the State. It cannot be seriously disputed that in so far as the items which are not available for taxation were concerned there was no evidence to show that those transactions had taken place within the State, in view of which the conclusion of the lower Court cannot be disturbe

(2.) THE result therefore is that the assessment orders in both these case include partly valid items which could be taxed and items which cannot be taxed According to the deeision of the Supreme Court the whole assessment order there fore is vitiated. It was however urged that the lower Court has erred in awarding interest in both the cases. In support of this contention a Bench decision of this Court was cited in Mothey Gangaraju v. State of A, P. I am bound by this decision and I think the lower Court coujd not have allowed interest. THE contesttion of Mr. K.V.Rangachari however was that in the grounds of appeal no ground in regard to interest was raised nor any reference was. made in the pleadings. I however permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to raise this question because it was a pure question of law. On the merits of the question the respondent could net bring to to my notice any provisioa of law or decison of this Court contrary to the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellans I do not think therefore the plaintiffs in Beth the cases we entitled to interest pa the amount of the tax collected by the State. As no other point was urged I would therefore partly allow both the appeals in so far as interest is concerned and dismiss the appeals in regard to the ether relief sought. THE respondent will be entitled to costs only in A.S. 383/58 of both the Courts to the extent of the decree which be got in that case. No costs in Tr. Appeal No. 381/61 of this Court. THE costs awarded by the trial Court in so far as the decree which stands in his favour is concerned, he will be entitled to get, but not costs in so far as the amount of interest is concerned, which has been disallowed by this court Appeal Allowed