THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO TRC No. 90 OF 2003 JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for the State Tax for the petitioner and Mr. A.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant is a tax revision case filed by the State assailing the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No.440 of 1998 on 16.01.2022.

3. The issue involved in the instant case was primarily that of certain excess tax collected by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,12,655/-. The challenge before the Tribunal was to the suo motu revisional powers exercised by the Revisional Authority i.e., Deputy Commissioner (CT) vide his revisional order dated 20.04.1998. The revisional authority had reached to the conclusion that the respondent-assessee has collected an excess tax of Rs.3,12,655/- from the customers which was ordered to be forefeited.

4. However, when the said revisional authority’s order was put to challenge before the Tribunal by way of Tribunal Appeal by the respondent-assessee in Tribunal Appeal No.440 of 1998, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the revisional authority has failed to take note of the clarification and the explanation that the respondent-assessee had made so far as the so called collection of excess tax is concerned.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, particularly its finding part which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:

“…A perusal of this provisions indicates that a dealer should not collect towards tax from the customers more amount than what is already paid by the dealer at the time of purchase if any and also payable by him on the sales made by him. Thus, in considering whether any excess tax is collected by the dealer which is liable for forfeiture U/s. 30(c) of APGST Act, the total amount paid by him at the time of purchase and payable by him at the time of sale, both have to be taken into account and the tax collected from the customer at the time of sale should not exceed as per this provisions the amount of tax already paid by the dealer at the time of purchase and payable by him on the sales made by him, both put together. Applying this provision to the facts of the present case, the dealer categorically mentioned in his reply to the showcase notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner proposing the revision that he paid Rs.5,17,238-00 at the time of purchase of crude oil to verious dealers and also paid Rs.2,47,328-00 the sales effected by him along with monthly A2 returns. He states further in the reply that thus the total payment made by if on both the counts i.e., on purchase and A2 returns comes to Rs. 7,64,561-00 whereas he collected only Rs.5,54,774-00 resulting in the short collection of Rs.2,09,787-00. But, the deputy Commissioner failed to refer and consider to this ples raised by the appellant in his reply to the show cause notices and erroneously took into account only what is payable by the appellant on the sale of refined oil made by him i.e., Rs. 2,42,199-00. Thus, he completely ignored provisions of Sec. 30B (2) of APGST Act which provides for taking into account the tax already paid by the dealer at that time of purchase and erroneously held that the appellant collected excess tax than what he is liable to pay. A reading of Sec. 30B(2) indicates that the dealer is entitled to collect not only sales tax payable by him on the sales made by him but also the tax already paid by him at the time of purchase. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the present case show that the appellant has not collected tax from the customers on the sales of refined oil anything excess than what he is entitled to collect and what he has collected is not excess tax as per Sec. 30(B(2) of APGST Act. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the Deputy Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant coll