9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1975-76, the Commercial Tax Officer, Nellore assessed the petitioner (assessee) herein to tax under the C.S.T. Act on a turnover of Rs. 6,54,635.05. That order was carried in appeal by the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner unsuccessfully. In the second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee filed an application to raise an additional ground contending that as an agent of ryots and also in his capacity as an agriculturist, he was not liable to tax on a turnover of Rs. 4,33,502 out of the disputed turnover of Rs. 6.38,928. The second contention raised by him was that under section 8-A(1)(a), the formula prescribed for determination of the taxable turnover has not been applied by the assessing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule laid down by the Full Bench in State of A.P. v. Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill [1977] 39 STC 57. The second contention urged is that the Tribunal had not gone into the question regarding the applicability of the formula contained in section 8-A(1)(a) for the purpose of determination of the taxable turnover of the assessee, although the contention was raised and therefore the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal. As regards the first point, we are of the view that the case of the assessee is not well-founded. The Full Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Venkata Rama Lingeshwara Rice Mill [1977] 39 STC 57 considered the question in extenso-whether it is open to an assessee to canvass the correctness of turnover, tax or rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted by him in his capacity as an agent of ryots and as an agriculturist. If this contention is to be accepted, the result would be that the assessee would not be liable to pay the basic rate of tax at 2 per cent and also the additional tax of 1/2 per cent. What he disputed before the first appellate authority was the exigibility of additional tax, but not the basic tax. Such situation was contemplated by the Full Bench when it ruled that the subject-matter of the appeal may be either disputed turnover, tax or the rate of tax and nothing else. By seeking to raise a new point before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee, in effect, was disputing the exigibility to tax of a turnover of Rs. 4,33,502 which he did not dispute before the first app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the view that the assessee must succeed. A specific plea was taken by the assessee that the formula contained in section 8-A(1)(a) of the C.S.T. Act in the determination of the taxable turnover has not been followed by the assessing authority. The first appellate authority negatived the plea of the assessee, but the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had not adverted to this aspect. It is within the province of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as the final court of fact to go into these aspects and, therefore, we do not wish to embark upon an enquiry as to what would be the consequence of the application of the principle contained in section 8-A(1)(a) in the determination of the taxable turnover of the assessee. For the foregoing reasons, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
