1960 (2) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
2. Determination of the appellant's status as a dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.
3. Justifiability of additional amounts added to the sales figures.
4. Examination of the appellant's eligibility for exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 815.

Validity of Assessment Orders:
The appellant challenged the assessment orders under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, arguing that they were not saved by section 41 as they related to periods when the Madras General Sales Tax Act was in force. The court held that the proviso to section 41 ensured continuity in the law, validating the assessment orders under the new Act.

Appellant's Status as a Dealer:
The appellant claimed to be a registered medical practitioner dispensing specific medicines only to patients, not a dealer under the Act. However, evidence showed the appellant advertised and sold the specific widely, contradicting his claim. The court determined that the appellant's activities fell within the definition of a "dealer" under the Act due to the continuous sale and advertisement of the specific.

Additional Amounts to Sales Figures:
The assessing officer made speculative additions to the sales figures, which lacked a reasonable basis. The court found the additions unsupported and deleted them. Regarding cash sales estimation, the court remanded the matter for further enquiry due to insufficient details provided by the assessing authority.

Exemption Eligibility under G.O. Ms. No. 815:
The appellant sought exemption under G.O. Ms. No. 815 for medical practitioners owning dispensaries and dispensing medicines to patients. However, based on the appellant's activities, the court concluded that he did not qualify for the exemption as he did not fit the criteria outlined in the government order.

In conclusion, the court confirmed the assessments, deleted unsupported additions to sales figures, and remanded the matter for further enquiry on cash sales. The appellant's exemption claim was rejected, and no costs were awarded.