TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18-3-2015 - K.C. Bhanu and M.Seetharama Murti, JJ. For the Appellant : S. Dwarakanath For the Respondent : S. Suri Babu, Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes (AP) JUDGMENT This appeal under section 23(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( the Act , for short) read with rule 41 of the Rules under the said Act by the appellant/dealer is directed against the orders dated March 24, 2004 of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in CCT's. Ref. L.III(2)/679/2002. 2. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/dealer and the learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. We have perused the material record. 3. The facts, which are necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:- The appellant/dealer is the assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, M. G. Road Circle ('the CTO', for brevity) and was finally assessed by the said officer for the year 1998-99. Aggrieved of the orders dated November 28, 2000 of the CTO, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Panjagutta (for brevity 'the ADC') disputing the tax liability on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the relevant year and that therefore, the ADC was right in giving the appropriate directions to the CTO to reopen the assessment of the relevant year 1997-98 and give the relief to the appellant. The necessary conditions for claiming the deduction are satisfied in the case of the appellant. The goods were returned within the statutory time from the date of delivery; and, necessary entries were also made in the accounts of the assessee; and, the claim was also made within the statutory time. As all the conditions were satisfied, the turnover related to the sales returns goods is deductible from the total turnover of the appellant related to the year 1997-98 as the goods were actually sold in that year. The appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Special Standing Counsel would contend that the conditions required for claiming the benefit are not satisfied and that the ADC while revising the assessment order of the CTO for the assessment year 1998-99 had no jurisdiction or authority to give a direction to the CTO to revise the assessment of the previous year 1997-98 and that therefore, the said order is not a valid and legal order and that the Commissioner had r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 53 and 54 in 53 STC): The two important conditions which have to be satisfied for claiming the deduction under rule 9(b)(i) are that the goods in question must have been returned within three months from the date of delivery and that necessary entries are made in the accounts of the assessee. If these conditions are satisfied, the amount allowed to the purchaser for the returned goods would be deductible from the total turnover. . . Any deduction that can be made under rule 9(b)(i) of the Rules can only be made from the total turnover of the assessment year in which the goods that are returned within three months of the date of delivery were actually sold. Such deduction cannot be claimed from the total turnover of the succeeding financial year. . . . This, however, need not present much difficulty as an assessee in that position can always file a revised return and claim the deduction or even if assessment is completed, demand adjustment or refund by preferring the claim in time. The learned counsel for the Department states that such an adjustment or refund can be claimed by an assessee. . . . We are, however, of the view that even in the absence of such an amendment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was received: Provided that the claim for deduction on account of such returned goods shall be admissible if it is preferred within a period of six months from the date on which the goods sold have been received or the goods purchased have been returned as the case may be. The claim for deduction should also satisfy the requirement of the rule 50(4) of the Rules, which reads as follows: Any assessing authority may at any time within one year from the date of service of an assessment order passed by him, revise the order, in respect of the claim for deduction on account of returned goods, referred to in clause (b) of rule 6, where the claim for deduction is received after the final assessment has been made, provided that the claim for deduction on account of such returned goods is preferred within a period of six months from the date on which the goods sold have been received back or the goods purchased have been returned as the case may be. The claim for deduction should satisfy all the requirements of the provisions of law. As already noted, the claim for deduction on account of return of goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
