GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (7) TMI 1108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

2015 (7) TMI 1108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT - [2015] 86 VST 479 (T&AP) - Validity of revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Warangal - Period of limitation - APGST - whether the assessee is entitled to refund of the tax paid on the purchase of value of un-tanned raw hides and skins under the A.P.G.S.T. Act - Held that:- there is no dispute that the show cause notices proposing to revise the orders of refund granted in 1992 came to be issued in the year 1999. The very notices are bey .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

st 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 Order. While T.R.C. No.89 of 2002 relating to the assessment year 1991-1992 arises from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the case of M/s.Deccan Leathers Ltd. (12 APSTJ 149) is also applicable to this case? iii) Whether the STAT is justified in allowing the appeal by setting aside the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal? The facts are not in dispute. In both the cases, the respondent-company, who is the assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Beet Bazaar, Warangal, deals in Hides and Skins falling in Entry 9 of III Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

judgment of this Court in M/s.Deccan Leathers Ltd. allowed the appeal rendering the following findings: i) The assessee is entitled to refund of the tax paid on the purchase of value of un-tanned raw hides and skins under the A.P.G.S.T. Act ii) The show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner is beyond limitation and thus the revisional order passed on31.07.1999 is barred by limitation. iii) The Tribunal also took into consideration the Government Memo No.12746/CT-II(2)/2001-4, dated 04.1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the revisional 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 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

statute to the Deputy Commissioner is within limitation. He has further contended that in view of K.A.K. Anwars case, the Deputy Commissioner while holding that raw hides and skins are different commodities from those of tanned hides and skins, rightly came to the conclusion that the goods sold by the dealer are different from those which had suffered tax and in that view of the matter, the dealer could not have claimed refund as admittedly the dealer had purchased tanned hides and skins. Hence .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l for the respondent-dealer, submits that the orders dated 22.06.1994 were served on the dealer on 01.08.1994 itself and not on 01.08.1995 as contended by the Department. Likewise, the order dated 13.07.1994 was served on 08.08.1994 and not on 08.08.1995. He further contends that only for the purpose of saving limitation, the Deputy 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 aft .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y this Court in Deccan Leathers case to be valid and the law declared by the Apex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case (1st cited supra) shall not be not made applicable to all transactions prior to 27.07.2011 i.e. the date of judgment of the Apex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case. Having considered the rival submissions, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent for the following reasons: When we analyze the order of the Deputy Commissioner, two things would emerge: a) The Deputy Commiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t as proposed in the pre-revision notice is hereby dropped. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner had accepted the contention of the dealer that the assessment orders allowing exemption of the sale of the tanned hides and skins by the dealer outside the State is not assessable under the provisions of the A.P.G.S.T. Act and thereby the assessment orders do not require any interference. So far as the refund granted under Rule 27-A of the Rules is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner had given his .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uded 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 respect to limitation, the order of refund came to be passed on 24.04.1992 under Rule 27-A of the Rules. Section 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act reads as under: Section 20(1): Section 20(2): Section 20(2-A):...... .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version