TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1480 of 1999, T.R.C.No.148 of 2002 relating to the assessment year 1992-1993 arises out of the order in T.A.No. 1481 of 1999 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity the APSTAT). In both the cases, the following three common questions of law are raised for adjudication by this Court. i) Whether the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Warangal are valid or not? ii) Whether the Honble High Courts judgment in the case of M/s.Deccan Leathers Ltd. (12 APSTJ 149) is also applicable to this case? iii) Whether the STAT is justified in allowing the appeal by setting aside the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Warangal? The facts are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the proposal to revise the assessment is concerned, dropped the proceedings, however passed orders holding that the dealer was granted refund under Rule 27-A of the Rules erroneously, as such, directed the same sum to be recovered. The dealer filed an appeal before the A.P.S.T.A.T. and the Tribunal, after considering the respective contentions and following the judgment of this Court in M/s.Deccan Leathers Ltd. allowed the appeal rendering the following findings: i) The assessee is entitled to refund of the tax paid on the purchase of value of un-tanned raw hides and skins under the A.P.G.S.T. Act ii) The show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner is beyond limitation and thus the revisional order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dealer on 01.08.1995 and the orders relating to the assessment year 1992-93 were served on 08.08.1995 taking 01.08.1995 and 08.08.1995 as the dates of service of notice on the dealer. The exercise of power conferred under the statute to the Deputy Commissioner is within limitation. He has further contended that in view of K.A.K. Anwars case, the Deputy Commissioner while holding that raw hides and skins are different commodities from those of tanned hides and skins, rightly came to the conclusion that the goods sold by the dealer are different from those which had suffered tax and in that view of the matter, the dealer could not have claimed refund as admittedly the dealer had purchased tanned hides and skins. Hence, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate, the Government had accepted that the law declared by this Court in Deccan Leathers case to be valid and the law declared by the Apex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case (1st cited supra) shall not be not made applicable to all transactions prior to 27.07.2011 i.e. the date of judgment of the Apex Court in K.A.K. Anwars case. Having considered the rival submissions, we are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent for the following reasons: When we analyze the order of the Deputy Commissioner, two things would emerge: a) The Deputy Commissioner while proposing to revise the order of the assessment, ordered recovery of the refund amount granted in the year 1992 on the ground that refund was granted erroneously. b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; This aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Tribunal in moulding the relief. Hence, we find no error in the order of the Tribunal in appreciation of the legal position. Further, with respect to limitation, the order of refund came to be passed on 24.04.1992 under Rule 27-A of the Rules. Section 20 of the A.P.G.S.T. Act reads as under: Section 20(1): Section 20(2): Section 20(2-A):.......... Section 20(3): In relation to an order of assessment passed under this Act, the powers conferred by Sub-sections(1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within such period not exceeding four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer, as may be prescribed; Sections 20(4 to 6): In t....