KANAKADURGA MANURE WORKS Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which is agitated in these tax revision cases is whether there is fresh material for the successor-assessing authority to issue the notice. The assessing authority issued a show-cause notice dated March 9, 1981 as to why the turnover of Rs. 12,61,419. 86 being the purchase value of raw bones, should not be taxed under section 6-A of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. This was on the ground that the purchases were made from unregistered dealers. The petitioner filed his objection. Thereafter, the proceedings were dropped. The same turnover was sought to be taxed by the successor-assessing authority. The correctness of that order was questioned before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. So also the second appeal by the petitioner before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on September 28, 1987.

(2.) THE question raised is covered by a decision of this Court in Girdharlal and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 442. We make it clear that for purposes of exercising the power under section 14 (4) of the Act, what is required to be seen is not whether the earlier order of the assessing authority was correct in law but whether there was fresh material justifying interference. If there is no fresh material, no subsequent assessment should be made even though the earlier order was erroneous in law.