1983 Supreme(AP) 315
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY, A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU
Warangal District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-15-83
An assessment that had become barred under the unamended provision of section 14 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 cannot be revived by the amended provision of section 14 (4-A).
Headnote:
SALES TAX - REVISION OF ASSESSMENT - LIMITATION - SECTION 14 (4-A) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1957 - APPLICABILITY - ASSESSMENT BECOMING BARRED UNDER UNAMENDED PROVISION - AMENDED PROVISION CANNOT REVIVE THE RIGHT TO REVISE - SECTION 14 (4-A) HAS NO APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a cooperative marketing society, claimed exemption on the turnover of maize purchased from the Food Corporation of India. The assessing authority disallowed the claim and revised the assessment under section 14 (4) (cc) of the Act, holding that the turnover represented sales of maize purchased from the Food Corporation of India, which was imported from outside the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revised assessment was barred by limitation as the assessing authority could not reopen the assessment for the year 1972-73 beyond 31/03/1977, i.e., after the expiry of 4 years from the date to which the assessment relates as per the provisions of the Act prior to the amendment of 17/01/1978. The amended provisions of section 14 (4) (cc) and section 14 (4-A) have no retrospective operation and they do not apply to cases decided prior to that date and in any event has no application to cases, to assessments that are barred under the provisions of the old Act.
Issues: 1. Whether section 14 (4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 has retrospective operation? 2. Whether the amended provision can revive the right to revise an assessment that had become barred under the unamended provision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 (4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is a procedural provision and can be applied retrospectively. 2. However, the amended provision cannot revive the right to revise an assessment that had become barred under the unamended provision. If the assessment had become final in the hands of the assessing authority, before the amended provision came into force, it cannot be responded under the amended provision.
Final Decision: The tax revision case was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.
( 1 ) THIS tax revision case is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 31/03/1980, in T. A. No. 371 of 1979, confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer revising the assessment in exercise of its power under sub-clause (cc) of clause (4) of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act.
( 2 ) M/s. The Warangal District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Warangal, is the assessee. For the year 1972-73, the society claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 6,37,938. 81 on the ground that it represented secondary purchase of maize from the Food Corporation of India, Warangal. The assessing authority disallowed the claim in respect of Rs. 86,014. 50. The order was made on 1 5/06/1976, and the same was served on the assessee shortly thereafter.
( 3 ) WHILE so, on 20/03/1978, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer served a notice on the assessee proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that exemption was wrongly granted in respect of a sum of Rs. 5,44,536. 30 and that the same represented import purchases made by the Food Corporation of India. The assessee was given three days for submitting explanation. As the time was too short, the assessee did not furnish any explanation. As the time was too short, the assessee did not furnish any explanation. On 23/03/1978, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority, revised the assessment under section 14 (4) (cc) of the Act and subjected the entire disputed turnover of Rs. 5,44,536. 30 to tax which was assessed at Rs. 12,252. 09 holding that the turnover represented sales of maize purchased from the Food Corporation of India, Warangal, who imported it from outside the State and as the assessee is the first purchaser in the State, the goods are taxable in his hands.
( 4 ) THE assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The main contention of the assessee was that the revision of assessment under section 14 (4) (cc) was barred by limitation as the assessing authority cannot reopen the assessment for the years 1972-73 beyond 31/03/1977, i. e. , after the expiry of 4 years from the date to which the assessment relates as per the provisions of the Act prior to the amendment of 17/01/1978. The amended provisions of section 14 (4) (cc) and section 14 (4-A) have no retrospective operation and they do not apply to cases decided prior to that date and in any event has no application to cases, to assessments that are barred under the provisions of the old Act. Both these contentions were repelled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that sections 14 (4) (cc) and 14 (4-A) were provisions relating to procedure and that as per section 14 (4-A) any assessment and can be revised within 4 years from the date of service of the order and since the original order of assessment was in 1976 the revision made in 1978 is well within time and by the time the revised assessment came to be made section 14 (4) (cc) was in force and as such section 14 (4) (cc) could be applied. In this view, the appeal was dismissed. The matter was carried in a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 31/03/1980, confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is against this order of the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee filed the present revision.
( 5 ) THE principal contention of Mr. P. Venkatarama Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the revised assessment is barred by limitation and section 14 (4-A) which came into force on 17/01/1978, has no retrospective operation and cannot be applied to the present case. It is submitted that prior to the amendment an assessment could be revised under section 14 (4) within four years from the date of the expirty of the period to which the assessment relates.