STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. GLIMMER EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MICA is taxable at the point of purchase by the last dealer who buys in the State at the rate of 3 per cent. The respondent is a dealer in mica. He submitted a return for the assessment year 1971-72, showing a gross turnover of Rs. 1,55,661. 50. Out of it he claimed exemption in respect of Rs. 153. 65, the balance being shown as net turnover. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer accepted the turnover, but his order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner under section 20 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The Deputy Commissioner observed that the Deputy Commissioner Tax Officer did not take the opening and closing stock into consideration while arriving at the net turnover and that neither the assessment order nor the assessment record showed the details for arriving at the last purchase turnover. He directed that the assessing authority had to compute the purchase turnover of the inter-State sales and foreign sales which become the last purchase turnover taxable at the hands of the dealer. Accordingly he determined the turnover at Rs. 1,93,625. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the dealer filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. His contention was that the Deputy Commissioner erred in altering the mode of computation of turnover followed by the department throughout. His case was that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have excluded the turnover which formed part of the closing stock of the preceding assessment year year and had been subjected to tax during the said preceding assessment year, viz. , 1970-71 as per the system followed by the department throughout. The Tribunal observed : "it is not in dispute that the opening stock of Rs. 51,151. 56 of the assessment year under appeal has suffered tax in the assessment year 1970-71, since the total purchases amounting to Rs. 71,768 for the year 1970-71 were taxed in that assessment year. " The Tribunal further observed that strictly speaking the principle enunciated by the Deputy Commissioner is the correct one; but observed that application of the said principle contrary to the practice in vogue would amount to double taxation. Accordingly it set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that the opening stock that had met the tax in the previous year ought to be deducted from the taxable turnover for the assessment year in question.

(2.) WE agree with the Tribunal that the principle enunciated by the Deputy Commissioner was the correct one. Having regard to entry 6 in the Second Schedule to the Act relating to mica, taxing of closing stock in that assessment year is based on no principle; but as pointed out by the Tribunal, having regard to the practice that was being followed by the department, the change in the principle would result in double taxation which would not be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has also pointed out that since the assessments for the subsequent years have become final and since they were not revised by the Deputy Commissioner, the principle enunciated by Deputy Commissioner cannot be given effect to uniformly.