2015 (7) TMI 1108 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner(CT) Warangal - Period of limitation - APGST - whether the assessee is entitled to refund of the tax paid on the purchase of value of un-tanned raw hides and skins under the A.P.G.S.T. Act - Held that - there is no dispute that the show cause notices proposing to revise the orders of refund granted in 1992 came to be issued in the year 1999. The very notices are beyond doubt and outside the limitation prescribed under Section 20(3) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. We are not impressed by the contention put forth by the learned Special Government Pleader for Commercial Tax that Section 20(3) applies only to assessment orders and not with regard to the refund orders granted under Rule 27-A of the A.P.G.S.T. Rules. The order dated 31.07.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner revising the refund order dated 24.04.1992 is barred by limitation - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner
2. Applicability of High Court's judgment in a specific case
3. Justification of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision
4. Applicability of limitation to orders passed under Rule 27-A of the Rules

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with two Tax Revision Cases concerning assessment years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, raising common questions of law. The respondent company, dealing in Hides and Skins, exported goods outside Andhra Pradesh and was granted exemption under the A.P.G.S.T. Act. The Deputy Commissioner proposed to revise the assessment orders, leading to a dispute over the validity of the revisional orders.

2. The High Court examined the applicability of its judgment in M/s. Deccan Leathers Ltd. to the case in question. The Tribunal, following the said judgment, allowed the appeal by the dealer, emphasizing the entitlement to refund of tax paid on un-tanned raw hides and skins. Additionally, the Court considered a Government Memo regarding the non-applicability of a Supreme Court judgment to transactions predating a specific date.

3. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the revisional orders of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged. The Court analyzed the Deputy Commissioner's actions, noting acceptance of the dealer's contentions regarding exemption of sales of tanned hides and skins outside the State. The Tribunal's consideration of legal positions, including limitations, was upheld as valid.

4. The Court delved into the issue of limitation concerning the orders passed under Rule 27-A of the Rules. It scrutinized Section 20(3) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, emphasizing the prescribed period for exercising powers related to assessment orders. The Court found the show cause notices proposing revision of refund orders in 1999 to be beyond the statutory limitation, thus upholding the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the Court answered the framed questions in favor of the respondent, highlighting the adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining the validity of revisional orders, applicability of judgments, justification of tribunal decisions, and the impact of limitations on refund orders. The Tax Revision Cases were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.