TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee claimed exemption of this turnover of Rs. 37,000 in the assessment year 1977-78. The assessing authority rejected the contention, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. On appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was accepted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed and it was held that the turnover of Rs. 37,000 should be excluded from the taxable turnover. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed in this T.R.C. The learned Government Pleader contends that under rule 6 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, the deductions have been specified and the deduction in the present case does not fall under one of the deductions, therefore it should not have been allowed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the succeeding year in view of the fact that the conditions of the rule had not been breached and in view of the fact that one year's period is granted for preferring the claim and that there was no power of revision in the assessing authority and also in view of the fact that the period for preferring an appeal was only sixty days. It would be relevant to note clauses (4) and (5) of rule 50 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, while considering the question whether the deduction is allowable in the year in which the value of the goods sold was added in the turnover or in the year in which the goods were returned. During the relevant assessment year 1977-78 they read as follows: "(4) An assessing or revision authority may at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribution of the cinematograph films and in the course of their business, some of the publicity materials sold to the exhibitors in the year 1957-58 were returned in 1958-59 and the assessee refunded the sale price to the purchaser. The Appellate Tribunal held that rule 6(1)(b)(i) applied to the case and allowed deduction from the gross turnover the sum representing the sale price refunded to the purchaser. It was held in that case that in view of rule 6(1)(b)(i) (as it stood then), the deduction can be allowed in the assessment year in which the value of the goods was refunded to the purchaser. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Motor Industries Co. [1983] 53 STC 48 the Supreme Court while considering the question of allowableness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, it follows that the deduction, adjustment or refund can be claimed only in relation to the financial year in which the sales had taken effect but not in relation to the subsequent year in which the goods were returned and the value of the goods was refunded to the purchaser, provided, of course, the other conditions of the rules are satisfied, viz., that the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was made and the claim for deduction on account of such returned goods is preferred within a year from the date of service of the order of assessment of the dealer. For the above reasons, the order of the Tribunal dated May 31, 1985 in T.A. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
