PALURU ROSAIAH SETTY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these tax revision cases raise common questions and hence they are disposed of by a common judgment. As the points raised in these revision cases are similar, it is sufficient to refer to the facts in one case, i. e. , T. R. C. No. 9 of 1974. The petitioners herein are registered dealers in paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1964-65, the turnover of the petitioners under the central Sales Tax Act was determined by the Commercial Tax Officer at Rs. 6,11,754. 27. The said turnover was assessed to tax at 2 per cent under the Central Sales Tax Act. This turnover included sales of paddy in the course of inter-State trade amounting to Rs. 6,08,979. 60. Against the said order, the petitioners went up in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, who, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons [[1965] 16 S. T. C. 231 (S. C.), set aside the assessment on the inter-State sales of paddy on the ground that paddy not being taxable at any point of sale under the State Act, no tax could be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act by virtue of section 9 (3) of the Central of the Central Act as it then stood. The excess tax paid was refunded to the petitioners.

(2.) ON 9th June, 1969, the Central Sales Tax Act was amended by the amending Act (Act No. 28 of 1969 ). The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, issued notices to the petitioners on 30th March, 1970, to show cause why the assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner should not be revised. The petitioners objected to the revision of the assessment. But the Deputy Commissioner overruled the objections and revised the appellate order and set aside the relied granted by the Appellate Commissioner and restored the original assessment order. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was made on 29th April, 1970.

(3.) THIS submission is devoid of any force. What the Deputy Commissioner exercised was only a power of revision under section 20 (2) of the Act. It cannot be said that the exercise of revisional power would amount to reassessment or a fresh assessment. What the Deputy Commissioner did in exercise of the revisional power was only to set aside the appellate order and restore the original order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessment was already made by the original authority but it was set aside by the appellate authority according to the law in force at the time of passing of the appellate order. Subsequently, by reason of the Amendment Act (Act No. 28 of 1969), the exemption granted by the appellate authority was found to be not valid and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of the revisional power, rectified the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority. It is not a case where there is any determination of the turnover afresh by the Deputy Commissioner as the original authority. Therefore the first contention has to be rejected. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioners in T. R. C. Nos. 9 to 11 of 1974 is that the amending Act introduced section 8a of the Central Sales Tax Act, allowing certain deductions, that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, in so far as it did not allow the deductions contempated by section 8a, is illegal and that the Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the Commercial Tax Officer for making fresh assessment after allowing deductions permissible under section 8a of the abovesaid Act.