AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J
The petitioner is questioning the order dated 12-10-1999 passed by the fourth respondent in Rc.No.2963 of 1999. That order was passed while rejecting the request of the petitioner to transfer back their assessment files to CTO, Ashoknagar Circle with whom the petitioner was filing returns and was being subjected to assessment. Clause (d) of sub-rule (21-A) of Rule 28 of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules lays down inter alia:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the above clauses :
(i) if any dealer is registered with a registering authority who does not have jurisdiction over the principal place of business of the dealer, it shall be deemed that the dealer has made an application for transfer of registration to the registering authority of the principal place of business and it shall also be deemed to have been transferred to such registering authority who has jurisdiction over the principal place of business with effect from 1st April, 2000".
It is not in dispute that the principal place of business of the petitioner as defined in Section 2(kk) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Circle of Kodad, inasmuch as the manufacturing Unit is located in Kodad Mandal. The Registered Office of the Company is, however, situate within the jurisdiction of Ashoknagar, Hyderabad Circle. The aforementioned sub-rule was introduced with a view to facilitate the assessing authority within whose jurisdiction the manufacturing Unit is situate to deal with the assessment and other files of the assesses.
It is to be noted that clause extracted above enacts a deeming provision. The effective date of change transfer was being extended from time to time after sub-rule (21-A) was introduced in the year 1996. First it was 1-4-1997. Thereafter, U was 1-4-1998 and then 1-4-1999. The latest applicable date is 1-4-2000. That date was prescribed by G.O. Ms. No.630, Revenue (CT-II) Department, dated 12-8-1999. According to that amendment, wherever the expression "1999" occurs in sub-rule (21-A) of Rule 28, it shall be substituted by "2000". During the intervening period between 1-4-1999, which was the earlier date prescribed and 16-8-1999, i.e., the date of publication of the Government Order amending the Rule, the earlier deeming provision was given effect to and the registration together with the relevant files were transferred to CTO, .Kodad Circle on 3-7-1999. In view of further extension of the date by G.O.Ms.No.630, the petitioner approached respondents 3 and 4 to retransfer the files to the second respondent. The same was refused. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
We cannot accept the view taken by the fourth respondent that G.O. Ms. No.630 amending sub-rule (21-A) is effective from the date of its issue, i.e., 12-8-1999 and does not apply to the files/cases already transferred between 1-4-1999 and 12-8-1999. The deeming provision has to be given full effect to and the consequences flowing therefrom cannot be allowed to be whittled down by the formal events that have taken place during the interregnum. Incidentally, we may mention that it is not the case of the respondents that after the transfer of files, any further action in the direction of making the assessments has been taken by the new assessing Officer. Apart from assigning a new registration number, nothing more seems to have been done. At best, there was only a physical transfer of records pertaining to the petitioner. That by itself does not preclude the operation of the deeming provision. We, therefore, quash the impugned order and direct that the new registration shall not be given effect to and the assessment files shall continue lo be dealt with by the previous assessing Officer till 1-4-2000.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.