N RAGHAVAREDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assessee was assessed for the years 1957 58 on a turnover of Rs. 12,775 by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore by his order dated 31st July, 1958. No assessment, however, was made for the assessment year 1956-57 with which alone we are now concerned. It appears that on the examination of the assessment record it was found that the Commercial Tax Inspector Mypaud, recorded a statement of the dealer on 7th July, 1958 wherein he stated that he had carried on the business in 1956-57 but had not submitted any return, nor did he pay any tax. Enquiry by the said Inspector at Mypaud on 2nd June, 1957 revealed that some stock of paddy was sold to the assessee but the said transaction was not entered in the books of the assessee. On 8th November, 1957 the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Evasions), Nellore inspected Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Mypaud. He recovered one pocket note book and three papers relating to the transactions of the assessee. The assessee admitted in his statement recorded by the Inspector that he purchased 46 candies three tooms of paddy during the period between 1st August, 1956 and 31st March, 1957 but did not pay any tax on that transaction.

(2.) On 26th July, 1958 the assessee in response to a notice of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. Nellore, filed three statements showing the purchases of paddy and sales of rice. He disclosed that he had purchased 46 candies 3 tooms for Rs. 11,984-12-0 during the period between 9-3-56 and 28-4-56 and that the same was milled in December, 1956. He also gave particulars of the sale of the resultant rice of 390 bags and broken rice of 11 bags. On the basis of the material available, the assessing authority held that the assessee suppressed purchase of 46 candies in a period of 1 1/2 months and that proportionately the dealer must have purchased 123 candies upto 31-7-1956 and 245 candies between the period 1-8-56 to 31-3-57. The assessing authority further held that taking the yield of rice at 8 bags per candy, the resultant rice of 123 candies of paddy he worked out at 984 bags, the average rate of which Rs. 40 per bag. Accordingly he determined the turnover of sales of rice for the first period at Rs. 39,360. For the second period, he estimated the average purchase price of paddy at Rs. 79,625. Thus the assessing authority determined the turnover for the year 1956-57 on a best judgment basis at Rs. 1,18,985.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Guntur. But he was not successful. On a further appeal to the Tribunal three contentions were raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. The first contention was that the case falls under section 14 (4) of the Act and therefore the assessing authority had no jurisdiction on a best of judgment basis to assess the Tax. The second contention was that as the determined turnover was less than Rs. 5 Lakhs, the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. Thirdly, a request for remand was made for further enquiry. The Tribunal rejected the first contention that the case comes under section 14 (4) and held that it comes under section 14 (3). The second contention also was rejected holding that the assessing authority had jurisdiction to make the assessment order as it did. The Tribunal, however, remanded the case to the assessing authority for fresh disposal after examining the A Register of Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, Mypaud atter giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and producing such evidence as he considers necessary. The assessee has preferred this revision petition under section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The first contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Act applicable to this case is the repealed Act, the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and not the prevailing Act. The argument is that since the assessment year is 1956-57 which ended on 31-3-57, and as the new Act came into force on 15-6-1957, the assessment proceedings would be governed by the provisions of the old Act and not by the new Act. It was further argued that if the old act applies, then under rule 37 of the then prevailing Rules the assessment should have been completed within three years next succeeding that to which the tax relates. Thus the assessment should have been completed before 31-3-60. As the assessment was not so completed, the assessee had acquired a right not to have his assessment made for the assessment year 1956-57.