AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.—The petitioner in this writ petition prays for a declaration that the petitioner''s activity does not involve manufacture and its turnover is not liable to sales tax, and for a direction to the first respondent to refund the amount illegally collected towards sales tax for the years 1977-78 to 1985-86, on the secondary sales of the commodity being dealt with by it. It also prays for a declaration that Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is null and void.
We notice that the petitioner was being regularly assessed from the year 1977-78, onwards and it was never aggrieved of the same. For the assessment year 1986-87 the petitioner is disputing the assessability to sales tax on the commodity sold by it on the ground that it is the same commodity which the petitioner had purchased.
Against the order of assessment for the year 1986-87, the petitioner had filed an appeal, and the appellate authority has granted conditional stay limiting it to the recovery of one-third of the disputed tax.
It will be noticed that, for the earlier years orders were validity passed and no appeals were preferred, as such, they cannot now be termed to be bad. Therefore, no petition can be filed, at this stage, against those orders when the same were never challenged before appropriate forum. Further, even if it is found, as a fact, that the sale of the commodity by the petitioner is a second sale, no writ petition can be filed asking for "refund" on the basis of a fresh enquiry by this Court as if the same commodity which has been purchased by the petitioner is sold by it, when the assessments for those years have become final.
The dispute regarding the assessment order for the year 1986-87, is still pending before the authority concerned, and we do not find any reason to entertain this petition at this stage.
Coming to the challenge to the validity of section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which has been introduced by way of an amendment, it is to be noticed that on the facts of the case, the section is not at all in controversy. Therefore, the petitioner is debarred from challenging the vires of the same.
With these remarks, the writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner is, however, allowed further fifteen days'' time from today to pay/deposit the amount in demand.
Writ petition dismissed.