1987 (2) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 872 of 1978 dismissing the appeal preferred by him. The assessment year relevant for this revision is 1975-76. During the assessment year 1975-76, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore assessed the petitioner (assessee) herein to tax under the C.S.T. Act on a turnover of Rs. 6,54,635.05. That order was carried in appeal by the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner unsuccessfully. In the second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee filed an application to raise an additional ground contending that as an agent of ryots and also in his capacity as an agriculturist, he was not liable to tax on a turnover of Rs. 4,33,502 out of the disputed turnover of Rs. 6.38,928. The second contention raised by him was that under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ords, the contention raised is that the plea taken by the assessee before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was outside the rule laid down by the Full Bench in State of A.P. v. Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill [1977] 39 STC 57. The second contention urged is that the Tribunal had not gone into the question regarding the applicability of the formula contained in section 8-A(1)(a) for the purpose of determination of the taxable turnover of the assessee, although the contention was raised and therefore the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal. As regards the first point, we are of the view that the case of the assessee is not well-founded. The Full Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill [1977] 39 ST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the first appeal that a turnover of Rs. 4,33,502 was not liable to tax on the ground that it represented the business transacted by him in his capacity as an agent of ryots and as an agriculturist. If this contention is to be accepted, the result would be that the assessee would not be liable to pay the basic rate of tax at 2 per cent and also the additional tax of 1/2 per cent. What he disputed before the first appellate authority was the exigibility of additional tax, but not the basic tax. Such situation was contemplated by the Full Bench when it ruled that the subject-matter of the appeal may be either disputed turnover, tax or the rate of tax and nothing else. By seeking to raise a new point before the Appellate Tribunal, the assess....