2026 (7) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.09.2009 in T.A. No. 321 of 2008 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (for short, the 'impugned order'). 2. Heard Mr. B. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax, for the respondent. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. R/85/200-08, decided on 19.11.2007. 4. The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant Tax Revision Case are that, the petitioner herein is a registered dealer on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer, Madhapur Circle, Madhapur, Hyderabad. The petitioner undertook execution of the works contract. One such ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confirmed the orders while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner-assessee. 8. Aggrieved, the instant Tax Revision Case is filed by the petitioner. 9. Though the Tax Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner with many substantial questions of law, the petitioner restricted the entire case on the following three substantial questions of law, viz., (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the petitioner has not made any claim stating that the amount received during the year was already taxed partly either in the preceding year or in the subsequent year ? (b) Whether the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order pas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gorical averments of the fact that an amount of Rs. 2,73,11,699/-which is an amount which has been taken into account by the Assessing Authority as part of gross turnover was already subjected to assessment and had been assessed to tax in the previous Assessment Year, i.e., 2003-04; and therefore, this amount ought to have been deducted from the total amount received by the petitioner in the subsequent years, i.e., the disputed Assessment Year 2004-05. Likewise, It was also not properly appreciated by the authorities concerned that in the gross turnover that the Assessing Officer had assessed, the said amount included the amount of Rs. 19,75,00,000/- was in fact an ad hoc payment received by the petitioner for the purchase to be executed in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have been dealt with by the authorities and thereafter a reasoned order ought to have been passed by the said authorities. 13. From the aforesaid factual circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal ought to have, while computing the net turnover, taking into account all the labour charges and also the amounts received relating to Assessment Years 2003-04, i.e., the previous Assessment Year and also the Assessment Year 2005-06, i.e., the subsequent Assessment Year period. 14. The expression "turnover" stands defined under Section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 which if read with Section 5F along with Rule 6(2) and 6(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957 woul....