9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1964-65, the transactions in turmeric were taxed on the first purchase point in the State. These turmeric were purchased by the petitioner and sold outside the State. Under the Central Sales Tax Act, he was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 3,89,599.07. The tax imposed was Rs. 5,478.59. Dissatisfied with that assessment order, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Anantapur. The appellate authority following the decision reported in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). held that since in the State the transaction was not amenable to tax, it is also not amenable to inter-State tax. While the matter stood thus, the Amendment A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall, for all purposes, be deemed to be, and to have always been, done or taken in accordance with law; (b) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court or before any authority for the refund of any such tax; and (c) no court shall enforce any decree or order directing the refund of any such tax." Sub-section (2) then for the removal of doubts declares that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing any person from questioning in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by the Act, any assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of tax referred to in sub-section (1) or from claiming refund according to the said provision. The third provision with which we are concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 9 would disclose that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, all the assessments or reassessments made during a particular period have been validated by the Act with retrospective effect. It only means that even if the assessments were set aside in appeal or quashed in the proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution, the assessments nevertheless would be valid. That was specifically held in the two Bench decisions of this Court: (1) W.P. No. 682 of 1972 and batch dated 30th November, 1972, and (2) Messrs. Chopperla Suryanarayana Moorthy and Co. v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer1972 A.P. High Court Notes 152 (Short Notes). In view of these judgments, therefore, there is no question of reopening of the assessments, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in certain cases. If the conditions laid down in that section are satisfied, then the liability to pay the tax would not be there and the assessment determining the tax leviable would not be enforced to that extent. It is therefore difficult to agree with the learned judge that the assessment has to be reopened, the turnover to be redetermined and it is only then that the liability to pay the tax would arise. The contention then was that section 8A of the amended Act also indicates that the assessment though validated will have to be reopened. We do not find any words in section 8A which would produce that result. Since no deduction was claimed under section 8A in the writ petitions and no point relating to that was urged before the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
