9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned State counsel. 2.. It appears that regular assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was made under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, vide assessment order dated February 24, 1982. In the year 1984, the petitioners had been served with a notice under section 21 of the Central Sales Tax Act for reopening of the assessment. The reason indicated for reopening the assessment is that the raw skin which had been sold by the petitioners to the purchaser outside the State was dressed and then exported by the purchasers. The notice further indicates that the raw and the dressed skins are two different commercial items under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioners were not entitled to the benefit given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take place in the course of import or export.-(1)...................... (2)..................... (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. Under section 14, certain goods have been declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, clause (iii) of which includes hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state 6.. On a perusal of the provisions quot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction between raw skin and dressed skin as two different items, for the purposes of sales tax liability on different rates. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Mohd. Basheer and Co. reported in [1989] 72 STC 185; (1989) 28 STL 55 (AP) has distinguished the case of Hajee Abdul Shukoor [1964] 15 STC 719 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 1729 in the similar circumstances, which was later on upheld by the honourable Supreme Court. Reference to above cases shall be made in the latter part of this judgment. 8.. In the case in hand, there is no such parallel provision, as was under consideration before the honourable Supreme Court in the case of A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor [1964] 15 STC 719; AIR 1964 SC 1729. On the other hand, section 14, clause (iii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hra Pradesh High Court, reported in [1989] 72 STC 185; (1989) 28 STL 55 (AP), a copy of the judgment has been filed as annexure RA-1. It was held that hides and skins are the same commodity, basing the conclusion on the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, namely, section 14(iii) and holding that benefit of exemption of sales tax on sale of raw skin shall be admissible to the petitioners under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It is averred in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit and submitted by the petitioners that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Basheer [1989] 72 STC 185; (1989) 28 STL 55 referred to above was upheld by the honourable Supreme Court and the appeal of the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. 11.. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that the notice issued under section 21 of the Central Sales Tax Act for reopening of the The reference appears to be to Farida Prime Tannery v. State of Karnataka [1992] 84 STC 133 (Kar).--Ed. assessment proceedings is bad in law for the reason that there is no discovery of any new fact or any new development having taken place. The material available before the assessing authority at the time of assessment remains the same. Forms H were submitted by the petitioners before the assessing authority, which were seen and scrutinised and thereafter tax benefit was made admissible to the petitioners. In such circumstances, it only amounts to change of opinion. Assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial as was available at the time the assessment proceedings took place. Reopening of assessment proceedings on change of opinion is not permissible under the law. 12.. We have already observed and dealt with the point that the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor [1964] 15 STC 719; AIR 1964 SC 1729, was based on the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1963 hence on that basis raw skins and dressed skins cannot be considered to be two different items and for the purposes of Central Sales Tax Act, they are to be considered as one item in view of section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act. 13.. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
