9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carry on business of trading in electrical goods and chemicals, and execute works contracts. 2. For the year 1998-99 (APGST), the petitioner was assessed on January 8, 2001 on a gross turnover of Rs. 6,23,78,877 allowing certain exemptions, and were assessed on a net turnover of Rs. 2,36,83,659. Thereafter the assessing authority, on a perusal of the records, was of the view that the respondent herein was eligible only for deduction on profits earned by the contractor relatable to labour, and overheads were not admissible deductions. He, therefore, proposed to assess the respondent herein under section 5F of the APGST Act. He issued a notice, proposing to revise the assessment order, under section 14(4) of the APGST Act. The respondent fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n his order-dated November 28, 2008. 4. Before the Tribunal the respondent herein referred not only to the judgments in Girdharlal and Company[1995] 97 STC 442 (AP), but also to other decisions of this court in (1) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kedia Vanaspati (P) Ltd.[1994] 95 STC 208 (AP), (2) Sri Ramanjaneya Groundnut Factory v. C.T.O., Kadiri[1996] 103 STC 297 (AP), (3) Western India Gunnies Private Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2003] 133 STC 14 (AP) and (4) Kamkadurga Manure Works v. State of Andhra Pradesh[2003] 133 STC 147 (AP). The Tribunal, having noted the said contentions, decided the appeal in favour of the respondent herein on merits. 5. Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be set aside on this ground. 6. Sri P. Balaji Varma, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would fairly state that the order passed by the assessing authority on April 21, 2004, in the exercise of his powers under section 14(4) of the APGST Act, is based on existing material and not on fresh material; and the order dated April 21, 2004 falls foul of the several judgments of this court referred to hereinabove. 7. The order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner dated January 29, 2005 cannot be faulted as he had merely followed the law laid down by this court in Girdharlal and Company[1995] 97 STC 442 (AP). The Additional Commissioner, while revising the said order, has not even dealt with this aspect. While the Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
