NAVA BHARATH AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION VIJAYAWADA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, dated 11-4-1990. The facts in brief are as follows: The appellant in both the appeals viz., M/s. Nava Bharat Agricultural and Commercial Corporation, Vijayawada is a dealer in Tractors Spares which are purchased by ryots for the purpose of utilising in repairs of tractors used in agriculture operations. Tractors are liable to tax at the rate of 3 paise under Section 3 (1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (for short the 'MGST Act') at every point of sale and also liable to additional tax at the rate of 6 paise on first sale under Sec. 3 (2) of the MGST Act. For the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 the appellant collected tax from the buyers at the above rates and paid to the Department which assessed at the same rate by the assessment orders dated 21-7-1975 and 26-4-1977. The appellant came to know that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held in TA No. 337/77 that tractors' spares used for agricultural purposes are not liable to tax by virtue of G.O.Ms.No. 10, Revenue, dated 2-1-1951 issued by the then Composite Madras State under the MGST Act read with Section 41 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act (for short the 'APGST Act') and the exemption continues to be in force till 16th June 1976 when the Andhra Pradesh Government rescinded the said G.O. Since the appellant had paid tax and could not file an appeal in time, it had filed revisions for 1974-75 and 1975-76 under Section 20 of the APGST Act before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Vijayawada. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revisions by a common order dated 5-7-1979 and consequently the appellant had refunded to the buyers the tax collected from them.

(2.) The appellant received the order dated 5-7-1979 on 6-7-1979. While so,the Commissioner (CT) issued show-cause notice dated 18-10-1982 which was served on the appellant on 25-10-1982, proposing to revise the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT) dated 5-7-1979 invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the APGST Act on the ground that under G.O.Ms. No. 10 tractors and its spares are exempt only from additional Sales-tax and relied on the subsequent decisions of the Tribunal. Challenging the show-cause notice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8463/82. The writ petition was admitted and stay was granted on 29-11-1982. However, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, by judgment dated 26-6-1987 this Court dismissed the same on the ground that the appellant has an alternative remedy and gave one month time for the appellant to file objections. The appellant filed the objections on 7-4-1990 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in response to the notice of the Commissioner dt. 16-3-1990 and raised various contentions. However, the Commissioner passed the impugned order dt. 11-4-1990 rejecting contentions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Special Appeals are filed.

(3.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant in boththe appeals is that the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 11-4-1990 is beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on the language used in Section 24-A of the APGST Act while the learned Government Pleader for Revenue contended that Section 24-A itself provides for extended period of limitation in the circumstances mentioned therein. The Counsel submitted that the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant directed the petitioner to file objections and on filing such objections, the authorities were directed to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the extended period of limitation provided under Section 24-A will come to the rescue of the revenue and the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is within the period of limitation.