BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these seven writ petitions, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BHEL") having its manufacturing unit at Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad, has sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the assessments made under the Central Sales Tax Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sangareddy, Medak district, for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81 and the provisional assessments made for the years 1983-84 to 1985-86.

(2.) There is an obvious mistake in the prayer in Writ Petitions Nos. 18397 to 18400 of 1989. For those years, the petitioner is aggrieved by the revised assessments made by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Nizamabad, but not by the assessment orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Even the dates on which the Deputy Commissioner passed the revisional orders are not correctly mentioned in the memoranda of writ petitions.

(3.) We may also point out that the prayer made in the writ petitions does not tally with what has been prayed for in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. In the affidavits, the prayer mentioned is to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19/07/1989, in respect of the aforementioned assessment years and to declare that the sales tax authorities in the State of A.P. have no power, authority or jurisdiction to assess or collect the Central sales tax (for short, "CST") on the inter-division stock transfers effected by the Hyderabad unit of BHEL. The other prayer incorporated in the affidavit is as follows : "In the event this honourable court comes to the conclusion that in law the commercial tax authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh would be competent to levy CST on the transactions of stock transfers effected by the Hyderabad unit of the petitioner-company,..., an appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondents 5 to 12 to return to the State of A.P. the sums collected by them towards CST from the executing units of the petitioner-company in respect of goods which moved from the Hyderabad unit either to the customer or to the executing division of the petitioner itself." Respondents 5 to 12 are the States of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh and the concerned sales tax officials of those States. In October, 1995, certain W.P.M. Ps. were filed to delete the name of the 8th respondent and to implead the Assistant Commissioner (Trade Tax), Muzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, in the place of the 8th respondent, probably in view of the change of jurisdiction. We have formally allowed those W.P.M. Ps. today.