S. ANANDA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Special Appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of commercial Taxes passed in exercise of revisional powers under Section 20 of the a. P. General Sales Tax Act.

( 2 ) THE assessee-M/s. Anandi Roller hour Mills, Hyderabad was provisionally assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer for the period from 1-5-1991 to 31-12-1991 under the Central Sales Tax Act, on the gross and net turnover of Rs. 26,56,160. 00 and levied tax at the rate of 2. 5% plus surcharge. The assessee-dealer carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Deputy commissioner, who allowed the appeal on the ground that wheat and wheat products are exempted by virtue of the Notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 377, Revenue department, dated 2-5-1991 which exempts from the levy of tax payable on the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the Roller Flour Mills within the State for a period of five years with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. The commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, felt that the said order accepting the claim of the Appellant for exemption is not in accordance with the law. Therefore, issued a show-cause notice proposing the revise the said order of the Appellate deputy Commissioner. After considering the explanation of the assessee/dealer, the commissioner was of the opinion that the g. O. was issued under sub-section (1) of sec. 9 of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act (for short apgst Act ) and not under sub-section (5) of Sec. 8 of the Central Sales Tax act (for short cst Act ). Therefore, the exemption granted under the said G. O. , applies only to the sale or purchase of wheat and wheat products by the Roller flour Mills within the State and it cannot be inferred that the said exemption equally applies to the inter-State transactions. Further, the Revisional Authority referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Act vs. Pine chemicals Ltd. decided against the assessee observing as under:-"from the above it is clear that in the absence of specific order by the government granting exemption under the CST Act, the exemption granted under Section 9 (1) of the apgst Act cannot overflow to cover inter-State sales. "the said order of the Revisional Authority is assailed in the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Revisional authority was completely in error in observing that a specific Notification under the provisions of the CST Act, is required for granting exemption in respect of the inter-State transactions. The learned Counsel contended that under Sec. 8 (2a) of the CST act, the transactions that are exempted under the A. P. G. S. T. Act are automatically exempted under the CST Act. The revisional authority had totally ignored the provisions of sub-section (2-A) of Sec. 8 while revising the order of the Appellate deputy Commissioner. In fact, according to the learned Counsel there is no finding by the Revision authority that the exemption granted under G. O. Ms. No. 377 is not a general exemption, but is under specified conditions or circumstances in which case the said exemption may not be treated as a general exemption so as to deny the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 8 (2-A ). The learned Counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pine Chemicals Ltd. and contended that the Apex Court after considering the contents of the G. O. issued by the Jammu and Kashmir had opined that the said G. O. , grants exemption only under specific conditions and circumstances and not as and by way of a general exemption. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of Sri Venkateswara Hybrid Seeds co. vs. State of A. P. and also a decision of this Court in the case of Toshiba Anand batteries Ltd. and Punjab Ananda Batteries Ltd. vs. State of A. P. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision in the case of Vinod solvent Extracts (P) Ltd. vs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document