9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience for the assessment year 1992-93 on a gross turnover of Rs. 12,06,07,766 and Rs. 11,98,49,711 respectively and raised a demand of Rs. 1,18,53,634 and the same was questioned by way of W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 and the said writ petition was allowed on December 27, 1999. The first respondent by his proceedings dated October 18, 2002 in G.I.R. No. 10396/92-93 (CST) made a fresh assessment on gross and net turnovers of Rs. 29,78,766 and Rs. 22,20,711 to a tax of Rs. 90,734. The stand taken by the writ petitioner is that this being the subjectmatter of W.P. No. 22434 of 1999, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. 3.. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit in detail and the stand taken by the first respondent is that the writ petitioner claimed the relief only on the part of the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 which was added on reassessment and not on turnover made in the original assessment. Further, specific stand was taken that this Court in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 did not set aside the turnover on assessment dated Sep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the counsel is whether the present impugned order is contrary to or in conflict with the prior order made by this Court in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 and whether the same is liable to be quashed on the said ground. No doubt certain incidental and ancillary questions had been canvassed by both the counsel in support of their respective contentions to substantiate their respective stands in relation to the principal question referred to supra. It may be appropriate to have a look at the relief prayed for in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999* which is as hereunder: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature Reported in [2000] 118 STC 571 (AP) (National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer). of writ of certiorari after calling for the records and quash the impugned order dated October 20, 1999 passed in R.C. No. 1396/99-2000 in G.I.R. No. 10396/92-93/CST by the first respondent or to pass such further or other orders as this honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 8.. In the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that part of the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 which was added on reassessment and the tax due thereon but not on the turnover made in the original assessment dated September 6, 1995 relating to the sales of ferric oxide. This honourable Court by an order dated April 27, 1999 did not appreciate the action of my predecessor in passing the assessment order on October 20, 1999 adding the turnover of Rs. 11,76,29,000 relating to sales of exim scrips under the CST Act. Accordingly, by its order dated December 27, 1999 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned assessment proceedings dated October 20, 1999 so far as the addition of turnover is concerned. It is submitted that as the turnover relating to the sales of ferric oxide in the original assessment order dated September 6, 1995 was also included in the impugned assessment order dated October 20, 1999, a separate order was passed on October 18, 2002 confirming the turnovers reported by the petitioner and accepted by the assessing authority in his assessment order dated September 6 1995. December 27, 1999, the petitioner was given relief, deleting the turnover of exim scrips added in the reassessment orders on October 20, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon to exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to prevent further harassment to the assessee. It is not at all just and appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the assessment is quashed." 10.. While dealing with the meaning of the expression "assessment" under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, a division Bench of this Court in K. Mohd. Osman Saheb Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 27 STC 303; ILR 1972 AP 719; 1970 APHN 357 held: "No doubt the word 'assessment' may have a comprehensive meaning and may sometimes mean the whole procedure laid down for imposing the tax or penalty, but the said expression must be interpreted with reference to the context in which it is used. .........Therefore, the expression 'assessment' occurring in the last sentence of section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is only referable to the final order of assessment and not the whole procedure for imposing the tax." Reported in [2000] 118 STC 571 (National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR 1970 SC 1; (1969) 2 SCC 74. This question of applicability or otherwise of the doctrine of merger had been well-discussed in a catena of decisions Reported in [2000] 118 STC 571 (National Mineral Development Corporation Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer). by the apex Court: Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Amritlal Bhogilal Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130; AIR 1958 SC 868, State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. [1967] 19 STC 144; AIR 1967 SC 681, Gojer Brothers (P) Ltd. v. Shri Ratan Lal Singh AIR 1974 SC 1380; (1974) 2 SCC 453 and S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 10; (1989) 4 SCC 582. A division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to deal with this aspect in Special Deputy Collector v. Vasudeva Rao (2003) 12 ILD 342. In the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit by the first respondent and on a careful analysis of the impugned order and also the order made by this Court in W.P. No. 22434 of 1999 this Court is satisfied that the applicability of doctrine of merger cannot be stretched too far to an assessment of this nature especially in the light of the fact that the original assessment was left untouched by the prior judicial verdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
