TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commercial Tax that Section 20(3) applies only to assessment orders and not with regard to the refund orders granted under Rule 27-A of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules. The order dated 31.07.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner revising the refund order dated 24.04.1992, is barred by limitation - Decided against the revenue. - T.R.C. Nos. 89 and 148 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2015 - G. Chandraiah and Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. M. Govinda Reddy, Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax (Telangana), for the petitioner. Dwarkanath for the respondent. ORDER Inasmuch as the question of fact and law and the parties in these two Tax Revision Cases are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this Common Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on the ground that it had exported the goods outside the State. For the assessment year 1991-92, a sum of ₹ 1,97,644/- and for the assessment year 1992-93 a sum of Rs.3,14,605/- were granted for refund under Rule-27-A of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules (for short the Rules). For the assessment year 1991-92, assessment was completed on 20.02.1994 and for the assessment year 1992-93 assessment was completed on 13.07.1994. The Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, issued notices dated 15.07.1999 proposing to revise orders of the assessing officer. The dealer filed replies on 24.07.1999, and the Deputy Commissioner, after considering the contentions of the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was beyond limitation? Sri M. Govinda Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax (Telangana) has strenuously contended that the order of the Tribunal holding that the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner and the orders passed thereon are beyond limitation is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the assessment orders were made on 22.06.1994 and 13.07.1994 and the show cause notices for revision were issued on 15.07.1999 and the orders came to be passed on 30.07.1999 and 31.07.1999. The Deputy Commissioner had recorded in his order that the orders relating to assessment year 1991-92 were served on the dealer on 01.08.1995 and the orders relating to the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puty Commissioner had put the year as 1995 and it is incomprehensible for someone to imagine that the orders made in 1994 were served in the year 1995 that too almost after one year. He further submits that a specific ground was raised by the dealer before the Tribunal that even though the Tribunal had not decided on this issue and gave any finding, it allowed the case on other grounds. However, the learned counsel urges that this aspect may be considered. By drawing our attention to the Memo No.12746/CT-II(2)/2001-4, dated 04.10.2001 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, he would submit that at any rate, the Government had accepted that the law declared by this Court in Deccan Leathers case to be valid and the law declared by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case holding that the raw hides and skins are different from tanned hides and skins. In the process, the Deputy Commissioner had overlooked the Memo issued by the Government for the purpose of completed transactions prior to the judgment of the Apex Court. The law declared by this Court in Deccan Leathers case shall be considered valid. In other words, the Government itself had taken a decision not to upset the concluded transactions prior to the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case. This aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Tribunal in moulding the relief. Hence, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal in appreciation of the legal position. Further, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
