Revisional jurisdiction and passing of property under F.O.R. terms determine assessment competence and sale location.

A change in the forum exercising revisional power did not affect the assessee's substantive rights because the revisional provision was procedural in character; the Deputy Commissioner was therefore competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. On the sale-location issue, an F.O.R. delivery clause in Andhra area did not by itself pass property there. Because the goods were consigned in the seller's name and the railway receipt went to the seller's bankers for release against payment, property passed only at Warangal, so the sale was completed in Telangana area.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act; and (ii) whether the sale of the goods was completed in Andhra area or in Telangana area.

Issue (i): whether the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The revisional power exercised by the Commissioner under the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act and by the Deputy Commissioner under the later Act was held to be procedural in character. The new Act did not take away the assessee's substantive rights to be assessed under the earlier law or the right of hearing, and the forum exercising revisional jurisdiction did not affect vested rights. Section 41(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act also supported treating the matter as if the new Act had been in force when the returns were filed.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner was competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Issue (ii): whether the sale of the goods was completed in Andhra area or in Telangana area.

Analysis: Although the contract provided for F.O.R. delivery in Andhra area, that fact alone did not establish that property passed there. The goods were consigned in the seller's own name to Warangal and the railway receipt was sent to the seller's bankers for delivery to the buyer against payment. On that footing, the property in the goods passed only at Warangal, and the sale was completed there.

Conclusion: The sale was completed in Telangana area and not in Andhra area.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the revisional authority had jurisdiction and the disputed turnover was not exempt, as the sales were completed outside Andhra area.

Ratio Decidendi: A change in the forum exercising revisional power does not affect substantive rights where the new provision is procedural, and under an F.O.R. arrangement property passes where the seller retains control and the buyer obtains delivery only against payment.

---