WINES INTERNATIONAL VIJAYAWADA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for our consideration in these review petitions is whether the High Court can review its order under Section 22(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 because of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view.

(2.) Under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957, hereinafter called the Act, Tax Revision Cases Nos. 40 and 41 of 1975 were filed by two assessees in this Court. On the ground that they were covered by the judgments of this Court in (1) M/s- Central Wines, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner (1) 1976 (1) A.P.L.J. 71 and (2) TR.C. Nos. 27 and 28 of 1974 dated 28-1-1975, they were dismissed with costs by the then Chief Justice Obul Reddi and one of us (Mr. Justice Gangadhara Rao) on 4th February 1976. On 25th October, 1976, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court in M/s. Central Wines, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner (1) in Mc. Dowell & Co. Ltd., vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2) 39 S.T.C. 151. The Supreme Court held that the excise duty or the contervailing duty paid directly to the excise authorities of the State or deposited directly in the State exchequer in respect of Indian liquor by the buyers thereof before removing it from distillery or the bonded warehouse and not included in the sale bills issued either by the manufacturer or the owner of the bonded warehouse could not form part of their turnover and were not liable to sales tax under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. 1957. On 17th November 1976 these two review petitions were filed to review the orders of the High Court dated 4th February 1976.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri Ananta Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that under Section 22(7)(a) of the Act, the High Court can review an order passed by it under sub-section (4) of that Section on the basis of facts which were not before it when it passed the order; that the decision of the Supreme Court is a fact, which was not before the High Court when it passed the order on 4-2-76; and, therefore, it can review that order in view of the decision of the Supreme Court It is further submitted that the terms of sub-section (7) are unqualified and the said fact need not be in existence when the High Court passed the order under sub-section(4).