SRINIVASA AND CO Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the notice dated 5th February, 1976, issued by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Ongole, under rule 14-A of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), proposing to assess the petitioner on a net turnover of Rs. 5,32,899. 60 for the year 1969-70 under the Central Sales Tax Act, and calling upon it to file its objections against the proposed assessment.

(2.) THE main ground on which the notice is attacked is that it is barred by limitation under rule 14-A (8) (b) of the Rules. The brief facts relevant for the purposes of deciding the said question are as follows : The petitioner is a registered firm carrying on business in ghee, which is taxable at the last purchase point under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the assessment year 1969-70, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the Act on 12th December, 1970, on the last purchase of ghee, to the extent of Rs. 47,46,190. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notice on 31st October, 1974, to the petitioner proposing to assess the turnover of Rs. 5,32,900 under the Central Sales Tax Act. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition, W. P. No. 6644 of 1974, in this Court contending that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to assess the turnover under rule 14-A (11) of the Rules beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, i. e. , after 31st March, 1974. According the said contention, this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice by an order dated 18th July, 1975. It was however observed by this Court that the order would not preclude the assessing authority from proceeding to take action under rule 14-A (4) of the Rules. Subsequently, the impugned notice was issued by the respondent. Hence the revision petition. Rule 14-A (8) of the Rules reads as follows :

(3.) I cannot accept this submission. It is not disputed that the turnover of Rs. 5,32,900 was disclosed in the return filed by the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1969-70 and it is also indicated in the return that the said turnover represents sales made to non-resident dealers who took delivery of the same within the State at Ongole. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the turnover or any other particulars. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment accepted the sales as intre-State sales within the State of Andhra Pradesh and held the turnover not liable to be taxed either under the State Act or the Central Act. Now the impugned notice is issued by the same Commercial Tax Officer taking a different view that the sales represented by the said turnover of Rs. 5,32,900 are inter-State sales liable to be taxed under the Central Act. So to is a case where the turnover has escaped the assessment not on account of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the turnover or any other particulars correctly, but on account of a change of opinion of the assessing authority with regard to the character of the said sales. Therefore, the case is governed by the provisions of rule 14- (8) (b) of the Rules, in which case, reassessment has to be made within a period of four years, i. e. , before 31st March, 1974. As the impugned notice has been issued beyond four years, it is clearly barred by limitation and the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that revision is not maintainable under article 227 of the Constitution on the ground that the Commercial Tax officer is not a Tribunal.