TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the revision petitioner under section 6A of the 1957 Act must therefore be held to be unsustainable for transgression of the audi alteram partem principle, particularly in view of non providing an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement. Reasoning of the Tribunal to impose liability under section 6A of the 1957 Act is fallacious as burden is upon assessee to show that they purchased a part of the turnover for milling and the rest for sale. Therefore, if the order of exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 621, dated June 28, 1989 were be restrictively interpreted as confined to the turnover relating to milling by the Federation, then the burden is upon the Federation as an assessee (that the Federation is also a dealer und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 957 Act ), exempted purchases of groundnut oil seeds by the Federation or its unions or member farmers under the Oil Seeds Development Project, from the liability to tax under the 1957 Act. The revising authority issued a show-cause notice, dated September 20, 1994, proposing to revise the order of assessment on the ground that since the Federation was exempted under the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 621, dated June 28, 1989, the revision petitioner was liable to pay the tax as the last dealer qua entry 6 of Schedule III. By the final order dated March 3, 1997, however, the revisional authority following the judgment of this court in Hindustan Milkfood Manufacturers Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1982] 51 STC 1 (AP), held that where there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration authorize the Federation to pursue the business not only as a miller but also a dealer in oil-seeds the exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 621, dated June 28, 1989 would apply only to such turnover of the Federation pertaining to the purchase of groundnuts intended for its milling operations, i.e., crushing into oil and not to those purchases of groundnuts meant for resale. For this analysis, the Tribunal relied on the decisions of this court in Nabi Oil Mills v. Commercial Tax Officer, Chittoor [1977] 40 STC 118 (AP) and State of A.P. v. Lalitha Oil Mills [1978] 42 STC 169 (AP). Resultantly, T.A. No. 492 of 1997 was dismissed on the ground that the revision petitioner had adduced no proof that he was the last purchaser of the groundnut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as the last dealer. However, that provision per se, is not in dispositive of the issue as to liability of the revision petitioner. Section 6A of the 1957 Act enjoins that, Every dealer, who in the course of business, (i) purchases any goods (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under this Act) from a registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax is payable under section 5 or under section 6, as the case may be, or (ii) . . . (a) consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or consumes them otherwise, or (b) disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) despatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision petitioner under section 6A of the 1957 Act must therefore be held to be unsustainable for transgression of the audi alteram partem principle, particularly in view of the statutory obligation under section 20(4) of the 1957 Act requiring the revisional authority to provide an opportunity to show cause against the proposed enhancement. The Tribunal, however, proceeded not on the basis of the revisional authority's premise of the petitioner's liability under section 6A of the 1957 Act, but on the basis that since the bye-laws of the Federation enable the Federation to function not only as a miler but also as a dealer in the oilseeds, the exemption notification in G.O. Ms. No. 621, dated June 28, 1989 must be construed as li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
