TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first respondent. The first respondent by his proceedings dated October 20, 1999 in Rc. No. 1396/99-2000 had made an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience for the assessment year 1992-93 on a gross turnover of Rs. 12,06,07,766 and Rs. 11,98,49,711 respectively and raised a demand of Rs. 1,18,53,634 and the same was questioned by way of W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 and the said writ petition was allowed on December 27, 1999. The first respondent by his proceedings dated October 18, 2002 in G.I.R. No. 10396/92-93 (CST) made a fresh assessment on gross and net turnovers of Rs. 29,78,766 and Rs. 22,20,711 to a tax of Rs. 90,734. The stand taken by the writ petitioner is that this being the subjectmatter of W.P. No. 22434 of 1999, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. 3.. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit in detail and the stand taken by the first respondent is that the writ petitioner claimed the relief only on the part of the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 which was added on reassessment and not on turnover made in the original assessment. Further, specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.. 7.. The simple question which had been argued at length by both the counsel is whether the present impugned order is contrary to or in conflict with the prior order made by this Court in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 and whether the same is liable to be quashed on the said ground. No doubt certain incidental and ancillary questions had been canvassed by both the counsel in support of their respective contentions to substantiate their respective stands in relation to the principal question referred to supra. It may be appropriate to have a look at the relief prayed for in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999* which is as hereunder: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature Reported in [2000] 118 STC 571 (AP) (National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer). of writ of certiorari after calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated October 20, 1999 passed in R.C. No. 1396/99-2000 in G.I.R. No. 10396/92-93/CST by the first respondent or to pass such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....34 of 1999 before this honourable Court. In the affidavit filed in support of that writ petition, the petitioner claimed relief only on that part of the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 which was added on reassessment and the tax due thereon but not on the turnover made in the original assessment dated September 6, 1995 relating to the sales of ferric oxide. This honourable Court by an order dated April 27, 1999 did not appreciate the action of my predecessor in passing the assessment order on October 20, 1999 adding the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 relating to sales of exim scrips under the CST Act. Accordingly, by its order dated December 27, 1999 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned assessment proceedings dated October 20, 1999 so far as the addition of turnover is concerned. It is submitted that as the turnover relating to the sales of ferric oxide in the original assessment order dated September 6, 1995 was also included in the impugned assessment order dated October 20, 1999, a separate order was passed on October 18, 2002 confirming the turnovers reported by the petitioner and accepted by the assessing authority in his assessment order dated September 6 1995. De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crores. It would be travesty of justice if the impugned assessment is allowed to stand. It is one of the extraordinary cases where we are called upon to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to prevent further harassment to the assessee. It is not at all just and appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the assessment is quashed." 10.. While dealing with the meaning of the expression "assessment" under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, a division Bench of this Court in K. Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 27 STC 303; ILR 1972 AP 719; 1970 APHN 357 held: "No doubt the word 'assessment' may have a comprehensive meaning and may sometimes mean the whole procedure laid down for imposing the tax or penalty, but the said expression must be interpreted with reference to the context in which it is used. .........Therefore, the expression 'assessment' occurring in the last sentence of section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is only referable to the final order of assessment and not the whole....