Revisional power and declared goods refund depend on strict statutory conditions after retrospective sales tax amendment.

Retrospective amendment of sales tax provisions does not, by itself, convert revisional correction of an illegal exemption into reassessment of escaped turnover; revisional power remains confined to examining the legality or propriety of the assessment record. The text further states that refund or exemption on declared goods depends on the amended statutory condition that Central sales tax has actually been paid, and the State rule cannot override that requirement or read "paid" as "payable." It also notes that limitation for revision is satisfied by passing the order within time, and delayed communication alone does not invalidate the revision order absent unreasonable delay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner could, in exercise of revisional power, interfere with the assessment order on the basis of the retrospective amendment to the sales tax provisions, or whether the matter required reassessment as escaped turnover; (ii) Whether refund or exemption in respect of declared goods was unavailable because Central sales tax had not been paid, despite the retrospective amendment of the statutory provisions; (iii) Whether the revisional order was invalid for limitation or for alleged delay in service/communication.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner could, in exercise of revisional power, interfere with the assessment order on the basis of the retrospective amendment to the sales tax provisions, or whether the matter required reassessment as escaped turnover.

Analysis: The distinction between revisional power and power to reopen or reassess escaped turnover was treated as settled. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was confined to examining the legality or propriety of the subordinate order on the record, and could not be converted into a reassessment proceeding merely because the law was retrospectively amended. A case where exemption had been granted under the then existing law but later became unsustainable because of the amendment did not become a case of escaped turnover.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner acted within revisional jurisdiction and the challenge based on reassessment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether refund or exemption in respect of declared goods was unavailable because Central sales tax had not been paid, despite the retrospective amendment of the statutory provisions.

Analysis: After the amendments to Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, refund or reimbursement of local tax on declared goods sold in inter-State trade depended on the statutory condition that Central sales tax had in fact been paid. The rule framed under the State Act could not override that requirement. The contention that "paid" should be read as "payable" was rejected in view of the clear language of the amended proviso.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to retain the exemption from local tax, and the refund-based challenge failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional order was invalid for limitation or for alleged delay in service/communication.

Analysis: The record showed that the revisional order was passed within the prescribed period under Section 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The statutory requirement was the making of the order within time, not its service within that period. In the absence of material showing unreasonable delay in communication, late service did not invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The limitation and delay objections were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The combined effect of the decision was that the revisional interference stood sustained and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective tax amendment does not convert revisional correction of an illegal exemption into reassessment of escaped turnover, and statutory refund of local tax on declared goods is available only when the conditions prescribed by the amended enactment are actually satisfied.

---