A THIPPANNA RAYAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against an order by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein three Miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 195, 225 and 269 of 1955, in Tribunal Appeal No. 412 of 1954, have been dismissed, and the subject-matter of the aforesaid appeal has been held to be confined to the disputed amount of turnover in the appeal memo.

(2.) The correctness of the legal view, on which the order has been passed, can hardly be determined without stating some facts of the case. It appears that the assessee had disputed before the Commercial Tax Officer the liability to pay sales tax only on two sums of Rs. 20, 558-4-9 and Rs. 47, 240-1-6, and before the Appellate Tribunal the disputed sum in the turnover was further limited to Rs. 47, 240-1-6. The petitions were filed to enable raising objections against the liability to sales tax on a higher turnover of Rs. 2, 77, 009-1-7. It was stated in petition No. 225 of 1955 that the assessee had instructed his representative before the Commercial Tax Officer to object to the entire turnover being made liable to pay the tax; but this his representative was prevented by the officer from pleading the objection. In the report of the officer the allegation of the petitioner has been denied and the Tribunal has rightly accepted the report; for the appeal memo before the officer does not show raising the plea of the entire turnover being free from liability. In these circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that the records do not corroborate the allegations of the petitioner should stand, and also the rejection of this petition.

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal has further held that the assessee cannot be permitted to enlarge the pecuniary limits of his dispute beyond what had been questioned in the first appeal, and has relied on the case of Kalam Somasundaram Chettiar & Sons v. The State of Madras (1955 6 S.T.C. 304), in support of this view. The case, among other things, decides that the Sales Tax Appellate Authority has no power to add a new item to the turnover and include therein what was not before the assessing authority. But the Tribunal, in the particular case, has held that as a corollary, the reverse position also must be accepted, namely that the Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain disputes about the new item in the turnover which was not before the first appellate authority. There could have been no objection to the rejections having been made in exercise of discretionary powers vested in the appellate authority The Tribunal, however, has dismissed the petitions on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, and consequently the following question of law has been raised in this revision against the order :-