VINEDALE DISTILLERIES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein, who is a manufacturer of liquor, files this appeal under Section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") assailing the orders of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad, dated July 20, 1996 purported to have passed in exercise of powers of revision under Section 20(1) of the said Act.

(2.) THE facts, as necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that in the course of its business as a manufacturer of liquor under D2 licence granted under the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968, the appellant had to sell the liquor in various containers, viz., bottles, cartons and other packing material. The main dispute is in regard to levy of tax on the containers. According to the appellant, it had followed the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Sheel v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1989] 74 STC 379, and accordingly, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner by his order dated July 17, 1992 held that there was separate sale of packing material and the norms were satisfied and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, and consequently assessment order was passed on October 23, 1992. By this, orders are sought to be revised by the Commissioner under Section 20 of the said Act on the ground that there is no such distinction in both the transactions. Accordingly, as contemplated under Sub -section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act, a show -cause notice was issued on July 6, 1996, which was served on the appellant on the same day. The appellant had filed objections and a personal hearing was given on July 20, 1996 by issuing a notice dated July 17, 1996, which was served on the same day of issuance. Thereupon, the orders are passed on the same day, i.e., on July 20, 1996 setting aside the orders of the appellate authority dated July 17, 1992 and the consequential orders passed by the assessing authority on October 23, 1992 restoring the original assessment order dated June 9, 1989. It is these proceedings, which are under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent sought to sustain the impugned action on the ground that the Commissioner had issued show -cause notice well within the time and orders are passed and therefore there is no illegality.