1976 (11) TMI 189 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' order.
2. Applicability of section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.
3. Limitation on the exercise of revision powers by the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes' Order:
The petitioner argued that the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were not illegal, and the Supreme Court's change in view should not necessitate rectification under revision powers. The court examined the Supreme Court's decision in Mod. Serajuddin v. State of Orissa, which clarified that only the contract between the foreign buyer and the Indian exporter can occasion the export, not the preceding contracts. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court did not lay down a new legal position but reiterated the established principle that only the last contract of sale between the exporter and the foreign importer can be considered as occasioning the export. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's contention, affirming that the Supreme Court's decision did not introduce a new legal interpretation but merely emphasized existing principles.

2. Applicability of Section 20(2-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act:
The petitioner contended that the same issue had been decided by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for previous assessment years and was pending for the assessment year 1969-70, thereby invoking section 20(2-A) to prevent the Deputy Commissioner from exercising revision powers. The court clarified that the principle of res judicata does not apply to tax matters, as each year's assessment is distinct. The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, emphasizing that decisions in one assessment year do not bind subsequent years. The court concluded that section 20(2-A) does not incorporate the concept of res judicata, and the Deputy Commissioner could exercise revision powers for the assessment years in question, irrespective of previous decisions or pending appeals.

3. Limitation on the Exercise of Revision Powers by the Deputy Commissioner:
The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner was barred by limitation from exercising revision powers, as the period for revision under section 14(4-C) had expired. The court noted that the Deputy Commissioner issued the show cause notice within the permissible period under section 20(3), which allows revision within four years from the date the order was served on the dealer. The court referenced a Division Bench decision in Meenakshi Corporation v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which upheld the limitation period under section 20(3). Consequently, the court rejected the petitioner's contention, affirming that the Deputy Commissioner acted within the statutory time limit.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all six petitions, ruling against the petitioner on all three contentions. The court clarified that it did not address any points other than those specifically dealt with in the judgment, leaving the petitioner free to raise other contentions before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the court awarded an advocate's fee of Rs. 150 in each case.