TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (7) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the assessment year 1979-1980 and T.R.C. No. 261 of 1988 is in regard to the assessment year 1980-1981. 2.. A common question of law arises in T.R.C. No. 259 of 1988 and T.R.C. No. 260 of 1988, that is, whether the successor assessing authority was justified in withdrawing the exemption and assessing the disputed turnover relating to the alleged second sales of cement gunny bags. 3.. We may note the facts relevant for consideration of the aforesaid question. For the years 1978-1979 and 1979-1980 the order of assessment was passed by the assessing authority on September 10, 1980. However, the successor-in-office noticed that exemption, on the alleged second sales of cement gunny bags, was wrongly granted; he, therefore, after issuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Box Makers [1989] 75 STC 82 (AP); (1989) 8 APSTJ 185 (AP), held in Girdharlal & Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995] 97 STC 442 (AP) that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under section 14(4)(cc) of the Act what is relevant is that there should be fresh material, de hors the material available at the time of first assessment, to justify the invoking of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. Lack of diligence on the part of the assessing authority while passing order of assessment earlier, is no ground to reopen the assessment. What is to be shown is that there was lack of material at the time of first assessment and that is supplemented subsequently which necessitated invoking the jurisdiction under section 14(4)(cc). I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners within the State, were second sales and were not exigible to sales tax. The claim of the petitioners was negatived on the basis that the certificate required under rule 45(3)(b) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 was not filed and the sale by the petitioners was treated as first sales. Justice Kondaiah, J. (as he then was) held that under section 7-A of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, the onus was on the petitioner to establish that the transactions which were sought to be taxed by the assessing authority on the assumption that they were first sales were really second sales within the State. The learned Judge, with reference to certificate referred to in rule 45(3)(b) of the Rules, observed that for proving that the sale was a second sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6(9)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. However, the Karnataka High Court held that the fact that the goods were second hand bottles itself was sufficient to hold that there was an earlier sale of the same bottles liable to tax and in that view of the matter set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the revision. To the extent the Karnataka High Court has impliedly held that not filing of the certificate as contemplated in the rule does not ipso facto enable the assessing authority to include the disputed turnover in the assessable turnover and that it was still open to the assessee to prove that the turnover in question related to second sales by producing other relevant oral or documentary evidence, we are in respectful agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is within the State and the goods were subjected to or liable to tax. 10.. In the instant case, the petitioner is an agent in three States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. There is no proof of the fact that the cement gunny bags were subjected to tax on the first sale within the State. The list of the hawkers were also not identifiable. Therefore, the tests laid down by this Court and subsequently approved by this Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. case [1986] 62 STC 71; (1986) 2 APSTJ 69, are not satisfied. The Tribunal, in its order under revision, held that in the circumstances such credence could not be given to the claim that the entire disputed turnover related to cement bags collected within the State of....