1974 (7) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 27th February, 1965. The period for which the assessment relates to is 1st April, 1963, to 15th November, 1963. The petitioner claimed exemption from tax liability on the inter-State sales of paddy, turmeric and gunny bags contending that they were subject to tax at the purchase point under the State Act and therefore not liable to be taxed under the Central Act. The Commercial Tax Officer disallowed the claim for exemption. In respect of the period 16th November, 1963, to 31st March, 1964, similar exemption was claimed by the petitioner. But the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the same. The petitioner then preferred appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kurnool, who allowed the exemption claimed in respect of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iginal assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer was in order and, in that view, he set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Nizamabad, subject to some modification with regard to the rate of tax in respect of the turnover of rice at 11 per cent instead of 2 per cent. It is these orders that are now challenged in these writ petitions. The first contention of Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to revise the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner and restore the original assessment order of the Commercial Tax Officer. I am unable to comprehend this submission of the learned c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the quantum of the turnover which is taxable or that there is any variation in the rate. What all the Deputy Commissioner did was to disallow the exemption granted by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the ruling in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.)., which has been superseded by the amending Act and to restore the original order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer which has been validated by section 9 of the amending Act and this amending Act has been given retrospective effect and it undoubtedly applies to the assessments in question. Therefore, the contention that the original order of assessment is not in accordance with the Central Act as amended by the Amendment Act 28 of 1969 has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitions or the quantum of their turnover or the rates at which they are taxable. Therefore, the assessments were properly made in accordance with the Central Act as amended by Act 28 of 1969 and, therefore, the question of making fresh assessments in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act as amended by the amending Act does not arise. It is next contended by Sri N. Madhusudhan Raj that the Deputy Commissioner could not have revised the assessments as they are beyond four years from the date on which the original assessments were made. This submission is sought to be supported by a reference to rules 14-A(8), (9), (10) and (11) of the Rules framed under section 13 of the Central Act. But this contention is also devoid of merit.....