TMI Blog1976 (9) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is three paise in a rupee. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not only a "miller" but also a "dealer" in groundnut and, therefore, such portion of the turnover of the groundnut which was sold by him to others was not exigible to tax. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, by his assessment order dated 28th October, 1969, assessed the entire turnover of groundnut representing the purchase of the groundnut by the petitioner to tax. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order dated 22nd July, 1970. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes after referring to the decision of this court in Jowli Sunkiah Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st several decisions, as manufacturers of groundnut oil, they are liable to pay tax as first purchasers. Hence, the objections raised are overruled and the assessment proposed is confirmed". In that view of the matter he confirmed the proposed assessment. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner carried the matter in appeal. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his order dated 17th November, 1973, dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment order in the following words: "...In Somanna Sons v. State of A.P.[1972] 30 S.T.C. 281 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court had clearly held that the purchasing by miller is liable to tax whether he purchased (sic) the entire oil or not. In Rafeeq Ahmed Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ections given in the appellate order. Though he issued a notice inviting objections and though he noticed that the petitioner purchased the groundnut from ryots and sold a part of that stock within or outside the State and used only the remaining stock for manufacturing groundnut oil, he did not determine what portion of the turnover was sold to others in or outside the State and what portion of the turnover represents groundnut, which was crushed into oil by him. He, no doubt, observed that no further material was placed before him. But he did not advert to the account books and the several affidavits already filed before him. He did so evidently because he was under the impression that in view of the subsequent decisions to which he did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is any illegality or irregularity committed by the Commercial Tax Officer in passing the order of 30th June, 1972" (i.e., directing refund in accordance with the Assistant Commissioner's order). In Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer[1960] 40 I.T.R. 618 (S.C.). where a subordinate tribunal refused to carry out the directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, their Lordships observed that "by that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is further more destructive of one of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with it in any other manner". But at the same time it also observed that "in none of the cases before us it was shown that any of the assessees had purchased groundnuts with a view to sell them. Hence we need not go into the question as to what would be the position in law where a miller purchases some groundnut for milling and the rest for sale". In B.G. Somanna Sons v. State of A.P.[1972] 30 S.T.C. 281 (S.C.)., dealing with the case of a miller, the Supreme Court left this question open observing that "in the cases before us also we need not consider the position of a miller who purchases some groundnuts for milling and the rest for sale". Hence if a particular assessee had purchased some groundnut for milling and kept some groundnut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee there contended that the purchase of raw hides and skins, for which exemption is claimed, were only for resale and not meant for tanning; that separate accounts have been maintained for that business separately, that while the firm at Srikakulam had been registered, the tannery at Vizianagaram had also been registered separately, that, therefore, these two should not be mixed up though there may be a common assessment, that the turnover relating to the purchases and sales of raw hides and skins should be exempted as he was not the last dealer in the State exigible to tax under item 9 of Schedule III of the Act. Just as raw hides and skins groundnut is exigible to tax in the hands of the miller, if he was the first purchaser a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
