Composition tax cancellation conditions upheld, but delayed-return cancellation was set aside for fresh proportionality review.

Rule 6-B(2)(iii) was upheld as valid because Section 5-G authorises composition tax subject to prescribed conditions, so cancellation conditions for default or contravention remained within delegated power. A combined order dealing with cancellation of the L1 certificate and reassessment was not invalid merely because both matters were decided together, as notice had been given on both issues. However, cancellation for belated return filing was found disproportionate on the facts, since the delay caused no prejudice to revenue. The assessment order was set aside and the question of cancellation of composition permission, with the resulting tax liability, was left for fresh consideration by the Assessing Authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 6-B(2)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires Section 5-G of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the assessment order cancelling the L1 certificate and revising the tax liability could be sustained, including on the ground that the order combined assessment and cancellation. (iii) Whether the cancellation of the L1 certificate for delayed filing of returns was justified or required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 6-B(2)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules was ultra vires Section 5-G of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: Section 5-G permits composition of tax subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Rule 6-B(2)(iii) prescribes the circumstances in which permission for composition may be cancelled, including failure to pay tax on time, suppression of turnover, or contravention of the Act or Rules. Since the parent provision itself authorises prescription of conditions, the rule operates within the delegated power and does not travel beyond Section 5-G.

Conclusion: Rule 6-B(2)(iii) was not ultra vires Section 5-G.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order cancelling the L1 certificate and revising the tax liability could be sustained, including on the ground that the order combined assessment and cancellation.

Analysis: The combined nature of the order was not, by itself, treated as illegal. The petitioner had been put on notice of both the proposed cancellation of composition permission and the proposed reassessment under the regular rate. The mere fact that the authority disposed of both aspects in one order did not render the order invalid.

Conclusion: The combined order was not invalid merely because it dealt with both assessment and cancellation together.

Issue (iii): Whether the cancellation of the L1 certificate for delayed filing of returns was justified or required reconsideration.

Analysis: The returns were filed belatedly, but the delay caused no prejudice to the revenue. The cancellation of composition permission for such delay was found to be disproportionate. The proper course was to require the Assessing Authority to reconsider whether termination of the L1 certificate was warranted and whether any such action would be proportionate to the infraction, and then to pass appropriate orders on both cancellation and tax liability.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the issue of cancellation of the L1 certificate was left for fresh consideration by the Assessing Authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the assessment order and reviving the composition certificate, while leaving the question of cancellation and consequent tax liability open for reconsideration by the Assessing Authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute authorises composition subject to prescribed conditions, the rule-making authority may validly prescribe cancellation conditions, but cancellation of such permission must still withstand scrutiny on proportionality and the facts of the breach.

---