Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Of A.P.,S.T.A.T.,Hyd. vs Vijay Kumar on 27 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
TAX REVISION CASE No.30 of 2003
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai) Heard Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes, for the petitioner, and Sri S.Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
2. Challenge in the present Tax Revision Case is to the order, dated 01.04.2002, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in T.A.No.785 of 1997. Shorn of inappropriate details, the factual situation, which led to filing of the present Tax Revision Case, is as follows:
3. Respondent-dealer sought exemption on the disputed turnover on the ground that they purchased Groundnut cake from three registered dealers of the State during the period- 1985-1986 and, as such, they be considered as second sellers and entitled for exemption. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer- II, Kadapa passed an assessment order, dated 18.03.1989, determining the Gross and Net turnover of the dealer in the following manner:
"Finally the assessment is completed by determining Gross and Net turnovers of the dealers as under:
Gross turnover determined... Rs.9,58,178.87 Exemption turnover determined.. Rs.9,58,1278.87 2 AVSS,J & RNT,J T.R.C.No.30 of 2003 Net Turnover determined .. Rs.Nil.
Tax Due ..Rs. Nil.
Tax paid .. Rs. Nil."
4. The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Kadapa had suo moto taken up the matter and passed an order on 18.07.1990, setting aside the exemption granted in favour of the respondent. Against the said order, the respondent-dealer filed Statutory Appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 24.12.1990. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner, in Appeal No.374/90-91, passed an order on 01.08.1997, dismissing the appeal.
Thereafter, the respondent-dealer filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal'). The Tribunal, vide impugned order, dated 01.04.2022, allowed T.A.No.785 of 1997 by restoring the orders of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, dated 18.03.1989. Questioning the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order, passed by the Tribunal, the present Tax Revision Case came to be instituted.
5. Learned Government Pleader contends that the order of the Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the material available on record; that, at relevant point of time of the alleged sale and purchase, the dealerships of the alleged vendors were not in existence and they were under cancellation.
6. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-dealer that the present Revision case is not 3 AVSS,J & RNT,J T.R.C.No.30 of 2003 maintainable, in the absence of any question of law, and that the Tribunal assigned valid and cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusions.
7. In the above background, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is: "whether the order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and whether the petitioner has made out a case, warranting any interference of this Court under the provisions of the A.P.General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for brevity, 'the Act')?".
8. The essence of the case of the petitioner is that as the dealerships of the firms, from whom the goods were alleged to have been purchased, were not in existence during the relevant period, the respondent-dealer is not entitled for any exemption under the Act and, as such, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the case of the respondent-dealer is that, since the dealer proved the purchase of the goods, by filing waybills and purchase bills, existence of the dealerships of the vendors is of no significance and that, as the said vendors are real and identifiable vendors, the existence of dealerships is of no relevance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, having regard to the meticulous analysis undertaken by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference of this Court, under Section 22 of the Act, in the absence of any error of law.
4 AVSS,J & RNT,J T.R.C.No.30 of 2003
10. In order to examine and adjudicate the issue in the present case, reference to Section 22 of the Act is essential and the said provision of law reads as follows:
"Revision by Special Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Within ninety days from the date on which an order under sub-Section (4) of Section 21 was communicated to him the dealer or the authority prescribed in this behalf may prefer to the Special Appellate Tribunal against the order on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law:
Provided that the Special Appellate Tribunal may admit a petition preferred after the period of ninety days aforesaid if it is satisfied that the petitioner has sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within that period.
11. A reading of the above provision of law demonstrates, in clear and candid terms, that the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court is permissible only in the cases where there is an error of law. The issue in the present case is required to be examined within the parameters of the said provision of law. Though the respondent-dealer was successful before the primary authority vide order, dated 128.03.1989, the other Statutory Departmental authorities concluded against the dealer. The Tribunal, by way of the questioned order, allowed the claim of the respondent-dealer by confirming the order passed by the primary authority.
12. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal, on thorough consideration of the entire material, including the proof of purchase by the dealer, concluded that 5 AVSS,J & RNT,J T.R.C.No.30 of 2003 mere non-existence of the dealerships of the vendors cannot be a ground to non-suit the respondent-dealer. The Tribunal also took into consideration the earlier judgments of this Court, including the judgment rendered in the case of the State of A.P. v. Thungabadra Industries Limited1, and allowed the appeal.
13. Having regard to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the order impugned and, in the absence of any error of law in the said order, this Court is not inclined to meddle with the said well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the Tax Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitioners, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI,J ________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J 27th April, 2022.
Tsy 1 (1999 62STC pg.71)