Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. on 4 March, 1991

M/S.Vijaya Venkata Durga Oil Traders vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Sivalayam ... on 25 September, 2014

.. This Court in State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. dealing with a claim of registered dealer, who claimed as a second seller of groundnut oil, taxable at the first point of sale within the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the provisions of the Act, laid down two principles to allow the exemption. They are (1) that the first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within the State ; and (2) that mere non-payment of tax by the first seller within the State does not shift the liability to pay tax on the second seller. In the light of these principles laid down by this Court, with which we are in respectable agreement, when we look at the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to establish that he made the purchase from a real and identifiable dealer within the State. There is no controversy that Bantu Chinnaiah & Co., Nizamabad, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and its identity is also not in dispute. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, it is true that there is no satisfactory evidence placed before the Tribunal or before us to show that the vendor of the petitioner filed returns including the sale of turmeric in the turnover. However, the department assessed the tax on the gross turnover of Rs. 8,85,500 and determined the tax of Rs. 63,313.25 paise. The reason that the vendor of the petitioner did not pay the assessed tax cannot be a valid ground to disallow the claim of the petitioner. We say this because under the statute, if the vendor is alone is liable to be taxed and if he fails to discharge the said liability, it is always open for the authorities under the Act to proceed against him and recover the same by the mode known to law. But that circumstance can never be a valid and tenable ground to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner. .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 55 - Cited by 3 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M/S Himachal Futuristic Communication vs State Of Haryana on 13 October, 2025

"4. This Court in State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1986] 62 STC 71 dealing with a claim of registered dealer, who claimed as a second seller of groundnut oil, taxable at the first point of sale within the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the provisions of the Act, laid down two principles to allow the exemption. They are (1) that the first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within the State; and (2) that mere non- payment of tax by the first seller within the State does not shift the liability to pay tax on the second seller. In the light of these principles laid down by this Court, with which we are in respectable agreement, when we look at the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner failed to establish that he made the purchase from a real and identifiable dealer within the State. There is no controversy that M/s. Bantu Chinnaiah & Co., Nizamabad, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and its identity is also not in dispute. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes, it is true that there is no satisfactory evidence placed before the Tribunal or before us to show that the vendor of the petitioner filed returns including the sale of turmeric in the turnover. However, the department assessed the tax on the gross turnover of Rs. 8,85,500 and determined the tax of Rs. 63,313.25 paise. The reason that the vendor of the petitioner did not pay the assessed tax cannot be a valid ground to disallow the claim of the petitioner. We say this because under the statute, if the vendor is alone is liable to be taxed and if he fails to discharge the said liability, it is always open for the authorities under the Act to proceed against him and recover the same by the mode known to law. But that circumstance can never be a valid and tenable ground to disallow the exemption claimed by the petitioner."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sethu Laxmi Traders vs State Of A.P. on 8 August, 2001

8. The learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. where it was held by this Court that in order to determine the eligibility of assessee, a registered dealer, who claimed exemption as a second seller of the groundnut oil taxable at the first point of sale within the State under the Act is to prove that the first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within the State. It was also held that mere non-payment of the tax by the first seller within the State does not shift the liability to pay the tax on the second seller. Here we are concerned only whether the first dealer is the real and identifiable or not ? In order to prove the same it is proper and just to give proper opportunity to the petitioner, who is only second seller, according to him.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panchamal Cashew Industries vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 1999

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1992] 86 STC 235, Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the appropriation of goods against a particular contract takes place only at the depot, when the invoice is raised after receipt of the payment as the goods moved from factory in one State and depot in other State in truck loads at frequent intervals and the goods were unloaded in the depot and entered into stock register.
Karnataka High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saraswathi Metal Mart vs The Joint Commissioner (Smr) Of on 27 November, 2018

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., (1986) 62 STC 71, the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that in order to determine eligibility of an assessee, a registered dealer, who claimed exemption as a second seller of product, taxable at the first point of sale, within the State, two tests which are applicable are namely (1) that the first seller should be a real and identifiable dealer within the State and (2) that mere non- payment of tax by the first seller within the State does not shift liability to pay tax on the second seller.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

State Of A.P.,S.T.A.T.,Hyd. vs Vijay Kumar on 27 April, 2022

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.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Western India Gunnies Private Limited vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 2 July, 1996

10. In the instant case, the petitioner is an agent in three States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharasthra. 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 , 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 Andhra Pradesh itself and that the assessee failed to establish that the purchases of empty gunny bags were made by them from real and identifiable dealers and that the assessee was not entitled to exemption automatically on the disputed turnover as relating to the second sales. In view of the above findings, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled for exemption. We find no merit in T.R.C. No. 261 of 1988 ; it is accordingly dismissed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ramanjaneya Groundnut Factory vs C.T.O. Kadiri And Anr. on 10 November, 1995

9. Now, we shall proceed to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. As already noted, the Commissioner restored the reassessment order made by the Commercial Tax Officer. Hence, we have to consider whether the approach adopted by the assessing officer who made the reassessment and by the revisional authority, namely, the Commissioner, is legally correct and proper. The Commercial Tax Officer observed that the assessee is relieved of his liability to pay tax only when the dealer to whom he sells the goods accounts for the same in his books of accounts and pays tax due thereon. This approach, in our view, is untenable. The law does not stipulate that the last purchasing dealer should have paid the tax on the purchases made by him or that he should have entered the purchase in his accounts. When once the sale and purchase is established, the liability to pay tax does not shift to the appellants merely because the purchasing dealer did not disclose his turnover fully and correctly or that he has not paid the tax. That is the view taken by a Divisional Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. [1986] 62 STC 71. However, the non-accountal of the goods by the purchasing dealer can be a ground to entertain a doubt on the genuineness of the transactions and may furnish a basis for a further probe, but it does not ipso facto falsify the assessee's claim. Another erroneous approach made by the assessing authority who passed the reassessment order was that he was under the impression that the proprietor of M/s. Sudhakar Oil Mills denied the purchases but there is no such statement in the letter relied upon by the Commercial Tax Officer. Obviously, the statement in the letter was misread by the Commercial Tax Officer. In fact, the Commissioner himself states in the impugned order that "the statement neither admits nor denies the transactions".
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1   2 Next