TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Commercial Tax Officer's jurisdiction on reassessment of iron/steel sales exemptions, emphasizing compliance and statutory provisions.</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to reassess exemptions on sales of iron and steel ... - Issues Involved:1. Exemption claims on sales of iron and steel products.2. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer in issuing a show cause notice.3. Limitation period for reassessment under Section 14 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act.4. Application of G.O. Ms. No. 1050 and Supreme Court judgment in Pyare Lal Malhotra case.5. Interpretation of 'order of assessment' under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Exemption Claims on Sales of Iron and Steel Products:The petitioner, a dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, claimed exemptions on sales of iron and steel products derived from iron scrap and billets. For the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioner reported a gross turnover of Rs. 1,42,76,227.22, claiming exemptions on Rs. 82,50,000 from iron scrap and Rs. 61,74,781.39 from billets. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer initially allowed the exemption for iron scrap but rejected it for billets due to lack of proof that the iron and steel were tax-paid and sold within the state. Subsequent appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were dismissed, influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Pyare Lal Malhotra, which treated different iron and steel products as separate taxable commodities.Jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer:The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer in issuing a show cause notice to withdraw the previously granted exemptions, arguing it was barred by the four-year limitation under Section 14(4) read with Section 14(4-A) of the Sales Tax Act. The court held that the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to hold an inquiry into whether the exemptions were legally granted. The court emphasized that Section 14(4) empowers the authority to reassess if exemptions were wrongly allowed, and such inquiries are not contingent on pre-established proof of escaped turnover or wrongly granted exemptions.Limitation Period for Reassessment:The court examined whether the reassessment was within the four-year limitation period. It held that the limitation period is extended by the time between the original assessment and its setting aside by a competent authority. Since the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter on 14th July 1978, the reassessment within four years from that date was deemed timely. The court referenced previous judgments supporting this interpretation, affirming that the proposed action was not barred by limitation.Application of G.O. Ms. No. 1050 and Supreme Court Judgment:The court noted that G.O. Ms. No. 1050, issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government, exempted sales of iron and steel products made from tax-paid materials between 1st April 1970 and 31st March 1976. The petitioner needed to prove compliance with this G.O. The court underscored that the Supreme Court's judgment in Pyare Lal Malhotra necessitated treating iron and steel products as separate taxable commodities, influencing the reassessment process.Interpretation of 'Order of Assessment':The court clarified that an 'order of assessment' under the Sales Tax Act is a single, indivisible declaration of tax liability, not fragmented into separate decisions on each turnover component. The granting of exemptions is preparatory to the final assessment order. The court rejected the notion that multiple assessment orders could exist for different turnover components, asserting that the remand by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal applied to the entire assessment proceedings.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed, with the court affirming the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer to reassess the exemptions and holding that the reassessment was within the statutory limitation period. The court emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions and rejected the argument that the reassessment was barred by time or constituted a change of opinion. The decision underscored the indivisibility of assessment orders and the necessity of proving compliance with exemption conditions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
