P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Batch of Special Appeals filed by the assessee under Section 23 of A. P. General Sales Tax Act arise out of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of power of revision vested in him under section 20 (1) of the said Act. In exercise of such power, the Commissioner by the impugned orders dated 31-7-1998 set aside the order of the appellate deputy Commissioner (CT) and restored the orders of the Assessing authority. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner by his common order dated 8-8-1994 set aside the assessments made by the Commercial Tax Officer on the disputed turnover relating to the Assessment Years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1988-89 and 1989-90. For the Assessment Years -1990-91 and 1991-92, a similar order was passed by the appellate authority in July, 1994. The appellate authority granted relief on the disputed turnover representing the tax assessed on the sales of wires. The relief was allowed on the ground that the wire rods from which wire was drawn suffered tax in the State at the point of sale to the appellant and therefore, no further tax need be paid on the resultant wire under Entry 2 to the III Schedule of the APGST Act. This relief was granted on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Telangana Steel Industries vs. State of AP. which was decided on 4-3-1994. The Supreme Court took the view that the wire rods and wires were treated by the Central Sales Tax Act and the A. P. G. S. T. Act as a single item of declared goods and therefore, if the wire rods purchased by the appellants suffered sales tax, the tax cannot be realised once again on the sale of wires, because it is a single point levy. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which took the view that wires and wirerods are separate taxable commodities and their inclusion in one sub-item does not preclude imposition of sales tax on the sales of both. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the appellants herein. It may be mentioned that pending Appeals in the Supreme court against the judgment of this High Court, the Supreme Court permitted the assessments and recovery of tax subject to any order of refund that may be ultimately passed. While disposing of the Appeals, the Supreme Court observed "we leave it to the appellants to work out their remedies relating to refund in accordance with the provisions contained in this Section" (Section 33-B ). It is not clear whether their Lordships meant to refer to section 33-B or Section 33-BB, both of which provide for refund in certain situations. Be that as it may, one of the courses open to the appellants was to claim refund under Section 33-BB pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme court. The subject-matter of the Writ Petitions out of which Appeals were filed in the Supreme Court, was not confined to any particular Assessment year and would have very well comprehended the Assessments allowed to be made pendente lite. However, the appellants have adopted the course of filing the appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner with petitions to condone the delay extending upto three years. Some appeals were filed even before the judgment of the Supreme Court and some were filed soon after the decision of the Supreme Court in Telangana Steel Industries. The appellate authority condoned the delay by passing a cryptic order, heard the appeals on merits and disposed of the same. Pursuant to the order of the appellate authority, the Commercial Tax Officer concerned granted refund of tax. It is this order of the appellate Deputy Commissioner that has been revised by the Commissioner under Section 20 (1) of the APGST Act.

( 2 ) THE Commissioner was of the view that the condonation of long periodsof delay was not warranted, more so when it results in undue enrichment of the appellants for the reason that tax burden had been passed on to the buyers. The second ground of revision is that the decision of the Supreme cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document