The court ruled that without sufficient evidence to support tax exemption claims on second sales, the decisions of the revisional authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal were justified, with no errors in revising within the limitation period.

ORDER :

Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J.

Though these Tax Revision Cases arise out of separate assessment orders, since the petitioner and the lis involved, are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These Tax Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner/assessee assailing the orders passed by the learned Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (for short ‘the STAT’) in TA.No.419 and 420 of 2004, dt.02.09.2009, relating to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively.

3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner/assessee is engaged in the business of hire purchasing and leasing and is registered on the rolls of Commercial Tax Officer, Marredpally Circle, Secunderabad (for short ‘the Assessing Authority’) under the provisions of APGST Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’), and the Assessing Authority, by order, dt.16.11.1998, granted exemption towards second sales turnover for 1995-96 based on the details furnished by it.

4. Subsequently, invoking power under Section 14(4) of the Act, the Assessing Authority reopened the assessment, issued a pre-assessment notice, and by orders, dt.21.01.2000, for both the assessment years disallowed the exemptions and fixed tax liability on the assessee.

5. Assailing the said orders, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad (for short ‘the appellate authority’) vide Appeal Nos. 542/1999-2000 and 543/1999-00 and the said appeals were allowed by the appellate authority vide orders dt.23.02.2000, restoring the exemption granted by the assessing authority in the first assessment orders.

6. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (CT), Legal, (for short ‘the revisional authority’), exercising powers under Section 20 (2) of the Act issued notice proposing to review the orders passed by the appellate authority for both assessment years, and thereafter, following due procedure, revised the orders passed by the appellate authority vide orders, dt.19.02.2004.

7. The appellant/assessee has challenged the said revisional orders before the learned STAT vide TA.No.419 and 420 of 2004, and the learned STAT after appreciating the evidence on record has confirmed the orders passed by the revisional authority, and assailing the same, the present tax revision cases are filed.

8. The following are the substantial questions of law(consolidated in both cases), which fell for consideration before us:

a) The order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law, material on record, unjust and unsustainable and its order is wholly vitiated thereby.

b) The Tribunal failed to consider the case of the assessee in the correct perspective and in the light of the principles laid down in the decided cases and its order is wholly vitiated thereby.

c) The Tribunal failed to see that the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad erred in re-assessing the original assessment for the year 1995-96 where under the exemptions were granted by the Authority without any perusal of the entire material, including the written arguments available on record.

d) The Tribunal failed to see that orders relating to the transactions of the years 1995-96 without any fresh enquiries as to ascertainment of the identification, genuineness and existence of the dealers in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are unreasonable and dehorsing the said enquiries and the material and to the said effect the order of re-assessment is wholly vitiated thereby.

e) The Tribunal failed to see that the Additional Commissioner (CT) Legal, Hyderabad, err