Export-sale exemption revisional power may be invoked when earlier assessments conflict with settled legal position.

Later judicial clarification of export-sale exemption under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and article 286(1)(b) could support revision under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act where an earlier assessment became inconsistent with the settled legal position. The Court treated the later Supreme Court exposition as a reaffirmation of the existing rule, not a new principle, and therefore held that revisional power was not barred on that ground. It also held that section 20(2-A) did not import res judicata across assessment years: a Tribunal ruling or pending appeal for one year did not preclude revision for other years. The revisional notices were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act could be invoked on the basis of the later exposition of law concerning sales in the course of export under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act barred revision because the same point had been decided by the Tribunal in some assessment years or was pending before it in another.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act could be invoked on the basis of the later exposition of law concerning sales in the course of export under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The legal position governing exemption for sales in the course of export had long been explained by the Supreme Court, and the later decision in Mod. Serajuddin did not create a new rule but reiterated that only the contract between the Indian exporter and the foreign buyer occasions the export. The show-cause notice was founded on that settled position. The Court held that the earlier relief granted by the Assistant Commissioner had become inconsistent with the correct legal position as judicially explained, and revision was therefore not barred merely because the Supreme Court had recently emphasised the principle.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction could validly be invoked; this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act barred revision because the same point had been decided by the Tribunal in some assessment years or was pending before it in another.

Analysis: Taxation proceedings are assessment-year specific, and a determination for one year does not operate as res judicata for another year. Section 20(2-A) was not construed as introducing res judicata into sales tax law. A pending appeal or an earlier tribunal decision on the same question could bar revision only for the particular assessment year concerned, not for different years. The Court therefore declined to read the provision as disabling revision across other assessment years.

Conclusion: Section 20(2-A) did not bar the revisional proceedings; this contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable on the grounds urged, and the revisional notices were upheld as legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax matters, each assessment year is a separate unit, and a later judicial clarification of the same legal principle may justify revision where the earlier assessment order is inconsistent with the correct law; section 20(2-A) does not import res judicata beyond the specific assessment year in issue.

---