9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing junta and fruit marsala". The petitioner (for short, ''the company") is the registered dealer under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, ''the Act"). For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessment proceedings were completed by exempting a turnover of Rs. 14,67,383 relating to the sale of junta", which was exempted from the sales tax. It appears that in exercise of the power under section 42A of the Act, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Second respond dent herein, issued a circular No. A.1.(1)3202/92, dated October 26, 1994 clarifying the position that junta" would have to be treated as a tobacco product falling under entry 7A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. He submits that the impugned memorandum of the Government cannot have any retrospective effect and that the show cause notice issued by the first respondent is wholly illegal and therefore, the tax cannot be provisionally assessed. In our view, the writ petition is somewhat premature. The impugned notice issued by the first respondent is only a show cause notice calling upon the company to file its objections within seven days of the receipt of the notice. The question whether the impugned memorandum of the Government dated January 23, 1996 has any retrospective effect and further what is the effect of insertion of entry No. 194 in the First Schedule to the Act are yet to be determined by the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner's order was not binding on the appellate authorities under the Act, who could examine the question afresh and if the appellants were aggrieved, they could thereafter ask for a reference under section 44 to the High Court and thus, the appellants therein had an alternative remedy. Then the assessee-dealer carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that the order of the Commissioner was clearly binding on the assessing authority under section 42-B(2) of the Act and though it was open to the appellants to urge their contentions before the appellate authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but that would be a mere exercise in futility when a superior officer, the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
