1980 (9) TMI 259 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessments under the A.P.G.S.T. Act and C.S.T. Act for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64.
2. Bar of limitation under Section 14(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act.
3. Exclusion of periods under Section 14(7) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act.
4. Inclusion of bundling charges, specific length charges, and dead-length charges in the assessee's turnover.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Assessments:
The petitioner questioned the validity of the assessments made under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act (A.P.G.S.T. Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act (C.S.T. Act) for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The primary contention was that the assessments were barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 14(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act.

2. Bar of Limitation under Section 14(1):
Section 14(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act prescribes that assessments must be made within four years from the expiry of the assessment year. The petitioner argued that the assessments made on 26th August 1976 for the year 1962-63 were barred by this limitation period. The Tribunal had held that the entire period from 31st March 1964 to 16th November 1973 should be excluded under Section 14(7), which the petitioner contested.

3. Exclusion of Periods under Section 14(7):
Section 14(7) provides for the exclusion of certain periods when computing the four-year limitation period. The petitioner argued that only two specific periods should be excluded:
- From 31st March 1964 (date of original assessment) to 22nd March 1965 (date of Assistant Commissioner's order).
- From 12th December 1965 (date of fresh assessment following remand) to 3rd May 1968 (date of Deputy Commissioner's order).

The court, however, held that the entire period from 31st March 1964 to 16th November 1973 should be excluded. It reasoned that there was an unbroken chain of orders by various authorities, each reversing the preceding order, and it would be unreasonable to exclude parts of this chain. The final order setting aside the assessment was that of the Tribunal dated 16th November 1973, and thus, the entire period until this date should be excluded.

4. Inclusion of Bundling Charges, Specific Length Charges, and Dead-Length Charges:
The petitioner contended that bundling charges, specific length charges, and dead-length charges should not be included in the turnover as they were post-sale charges. However, the court found that the petitioner had not provided any material evidence to support this claim before the appropriate authorities. Consequently, the court rejected this contention, stating that the petitioner could not request a remand for investigation on this aspect at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the tax revision cases, holding that the assessments were within the limitation period when considering the exclusion under Section 14(7). The court also rejected the contention regarding the exclusion of certain charges from the turnover. The petitioner's request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, as the court did not find any substantial question of law of general importance. The stay of tax collection was extended for one month to allow the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court.