9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the principles enunciated by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 706 of 1959. The matter was then suo motu revised by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantapur, who held that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner were not correct in view of this Court's decision in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Krishna Rajeswara Oil Co., Nandyal(1) and directed the assessing authority to work out the rebate on the basis of the principles laid down by this Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Krishna Rajeswara Oil Co., NandyalT.R.C. No. 43 of 1961 dated 22nd February, 1962. The respondents preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Anantapur. The Tribunal in its turn, followed the decision of this Court in The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Ranganatha Rice Mill Contractors, Eluru, and Others(1) and set aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the case to the assessing authority to decide the matter in the light of the observations contained in T.R.C. No. 53 of 1961. Dissatisfied with the decision, the State has come up to this Court in this tax revision case. The main criticism that has been levelled by the learned Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember, 1963. (2) T.R.C. No. 43 of 1961 dated 22nd February, 1962. assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area in which he carries on his business, be registered as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake. (2) Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under clause (k) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel, purchased and converted by him into oil and cake: Provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his total turnover and tax has been paid to the State on such sale; Provided further that the amount of the turnover in respect of which deduction is allowed shall be the turnover attributable to the groundnut and/or kernel used in the manufacture of the oil sold as revealed in the accounts or as worked out according to the explanation whichever is less, and on which tax has been paid to the State. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-rule- (a) 143 lbs. of groundnut shall be taken as equivalent to 100 lbs. of kernel; (b) 143 lbs. of groundnut or 100 lbs. of kernel when converted into oil will normally be taken to yield 40 lbs. of oil; and (c) one candy of oil shall be taken to be equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other condition before a deduction is allowed. It is, that the dealer must have paid tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh, on the turnover of the groundnut and/or kernel used in the manufacture of the oil sold by him. If he has not paid tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh on his purchase of the groundnut and/or kernel, it is not open to him to claim deduction of that amount. But, the proviso does not make it incumbent on the dealer to correlate and identify what exact quantity of groundnut is used in the manufacture of a given quantity of oil or cake. The use of the word "attributable" in this proviso gives clear guidance in this behalf. It is sufficient for him if his accounts reveal, that in the course of manufacture of oil, he has purchased groundnut and/or kernel and has paid tax thereon to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The amount of purchase as revealed in the accounts is not automatically accepted as a permissible deduction. The sub-rule provides by way of an explanation a method or formula for arriving at the quantities of groundnut and/or kernel used in the manufacture of oil. The second proviso lays down that whichever is less of (1) quantities of groundnut and/or kernel as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Andhra considered the scope and amplitude of rule 18(2) and (3) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Rule 18(2) and other relevant rules of those Rules are to a very large extent analogous to rules 25(2) and 6 of the Rules under consideration. Only the explanation to the present rule 25(2) was absent in rule 18(2) of the Rules under the Madras Act and the rest of the sub-rules are practically the same in both the sets of Rules. Though the question that arose for consideration in the Full Bench case was whether the deduction referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules is conditional upon the assessee complying with the requirement contained in sub-rule (3) of that rule, some of the observations of the Full Bench may be usefully quoted here. At page 564 Satyanarayana Raju, J., as he then was, speaking for the Full Bench observed: "Any dealer who manufactures groundnut oil and cake from groundnut or groundnut kernel purchased by him, may register himself as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake. Such manufacturer of groundnut oil (other than refined groundnut oil) and cake is entitled to a deduct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
