1976 (9) TMI 151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Retrospective amendment of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and its implications.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the Deputy Commissioner to revise the assessment order.
3. Limitation period for reassessment and the timing of the service of the order.
4. Interpretation of the term "paid" in the context of the Central Sales Tax Act and Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Retrospective Amendment of Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and Its Implications:
The petitioner, a dealer in hides and skins, contended that the amendment to section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act by Act 61 of 1972, which was retrospective from 1st October 1958, required the payment of Central sales tax as a condition precedent for claiming a refund of the local sales tax. The amendment aimed to align the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act with the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court noted that the retrospective amendment meant that if the Central sales tax was not paid, the local tax could not be refunded. The petitioner's argument that the amendment to rule 27-A was only prospective and not retrospective was rejected, as the retrospective amendment of section 15(b) mandated the payment of Central sales tax for refund eligibility.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the Deputy Commissioner to Revise the Assessment Order:
The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order revising the assessment was essentially a reassessment and should have been made under section 14(4) within four years. The Court distinguished between the power of revision and reassessment, citing Supreme Court cases such as State of Kerala v. Cheria Abdulla & Co. and Rajmal Multanmal & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner acted within his revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as the exemption was granted based on the law before the retrospective amendment. The revision was not considered a reassessment of escaped turnover but a correction of an improper exemption.

3. Limitation Period for Reassessment and the Timing of the Service of the Order:
The petitioner contended that the period of limitation for reassessment expired on 31st March 1973, and the Deputy Commissioner's order, served on 22nd January 1975, was beyond this period. The Court clarified that the order was passed on 17th November 1973, within the limitation period, and the delay in service did not invalidate it. The Court referred to Rajmal Multanmal & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, which held that the timing of the service of the order was immaterial as long as the order was passed within the limitation period. The Court found no unreasonable delay in communicating the order and upheld its validity.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Paid" in the Context of the Central Sales Tax Act and Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:
The petitioner argued that the term "paid" in the proviso to section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act should be interpreted as "payable," contending that since no Central sales tax was payable at the time of the transactions, the benefit of the refund should be granted. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the clear language of the proviso requiring the actual payment of Central sales tax for the refund of local tax. The Court upheld that the factum of payment, not merely the liability to pay, was necessary for claiming the refund.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the retrospective amendments to the Central Sales Tax Act and the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act required the payment of Central sales tax for claiming refunds of local tax. The Deputy Commissioner acted within his revisional jurisdiction, and the delay in serving the order did not affect its validity. The interpretation of "paid" was upheld as requiring actual payment, not just liability. The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the rule was discharged.