2015 (3) TMI 1193 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict: APGST Act Prevails Over CST Act for 1997-98 Assessment

The court resolved the jurisdictional conflict between the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) for ... Double taxation - Demand under CST Act - Already the entire turnover was brought under the purview of APGST Act and tax is determined - Seeking direction to interdict revenue from taking any coercive steps for recovery of demand under CST - Held that:- though originally the petitioner was assessed under the CST Act, the same was brought under the APGST Act vide order, dated August 29, 2001, and accordingly, tax is determined, which is confirmed by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, the same turnover cannot be the subject-matter under the CST Act. The respondents are directed not to take any steps for enforcement of the demand under the CST Act and the garnishee notice is hereby quashed, in view of the revised order passed by the revisional authority bringing the entire turn- over under the APGST Act. - Petition disposed of Issues:1. Jurisdictional conflict between the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (APGST Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act) for the assessment year 1997-98.2. Validity of the demand under the CST Act for a turnover already assessed under the APGST Act.3. Legality of the garnishee notice issued under section 17 of the APGST Act for recovery of tax.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under both the APGST Act and the CST Act, was initially assessed by respondent No. 3 under the CST Act for the assessment year 1997-98, resulting in a demand of &8377; 10,18,000 on export sales of cashew nuts. Subsequently, the assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner, bringing the entire turnover under the APGST Act and assessing tax accordingly. The petitioner contended that the same turnover cannot be subject to assessment under both Acts simultaneously.2. The counter-affidavit stated that a garnishee notice was issued for recovery of the tax demanded under the CST Act, despite the revised assessment under the APGST Act. The court observed that once the turnover was brought under the APGST Act and tax was determined, it could not be subjected to assessment again under the CST Act. The appellate authority had confirmed the revised assessment under the APGST Act, thereby precluding further assessment under the CST Act for the same turnover.3. In light of the revised assessment order bringing the entire turnover under the APGST Act and the confirmation by the appellate authority, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to refrain from enforcing the demand under the CST Act. The garnishee notice issued for recovery of tax on the same turnover was quashed. The judgment clarified the exclusivity of the revised assessment under the APGST Act, preventing dual taxation on the same turnover.Conclusion:The judgment resolved the jurisdictional conflict between the APGST Act and the CST Act for the assessment year 1997-98, affirming the exclusive applicability of the revised assessment under the APGST Act and prohibiting further enforcement under the CST Act. The legality of the garnishee notice issued for tax recovery was addressed, emphasizing the finality of the revised assessment and the inapplicability of dual taxation on the same turnover.